Re: [dkim unverified] Re: IESG Statement on Spam Control on IETF Mailing Lists

Michael Thomas <mat@cisco.com> Mon, 14 April 2008 18:16 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 526E63A6A4C; Mon, 14 Apr 2008 11:16:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9141D3A6B5D for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Apr 2008 11:16:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.553
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.553 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.046, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id B4zPgqoC+ekj for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Apr 2008 11:16:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 969E13A6DB2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Apr 2008 11:15:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sjc12-sbr-sw3-3f5.cisco.com (HELO imail.cisco.com) ([172.19.96.182]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 14 Apr 2008 11:16:14 -0700
Received: from 64-142-29-214.dsl.static.sonic.net ([10.21.125.187]) by imail.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.10) with ESMTP id m3EHxmvH017602; Mon, 14 Apr 2008 10:59:49 -0700
Message-ID: <48039F71.8070604@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 11:16:17 -0700
From: Michael Thomas <mat@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.8.1.12) Gecko/20080213 Thunderbird/2.0.0.12 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [dkim unverified] Re: IESG Statement on Spam Control on IETF Mailing Lists
References: <20080414153938.0A5153A6D4D@core3.amsl.com> <2788466ED3E31C418E9ACC5C316615572EF8A7@mou1wnexmb09.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <20080414172440.7E8943A6D83@core3.amsl.com> <48039EC3.6010108@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <48039EC3.6010108@cisco.com>
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=880; t=1208195989; x=1209059989; c=relaxed/simple; s=oregon; h=To:Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=mat@cisco.com; z=From:=20Michael=20Thomas=20<mat@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[dkim=20unverified]=20Re=3A=20IESG=20St atement=20on=20Spam=20Control=20on=20IETF=0A=20Mailing=20Lis ts |Sender:=20 |To:=20Eliot=20Lear=20<lear@cisco.com>; bh=4ND8QCZ+gY1Byo5bnUmRhCF2lA2DX6ppnsH3jejTRk4=; b=WU8iJQg0+4hPL9q4vKYWjP1X52/z1RHA9zgTa1DnYE4aqu1LFyJXdM4qgp Hys3SRQlgzQCOc+Sz0CigI65QaXJ4WF+ELN+czSuAwFK9wK6BBjPLvUbiP0U lkLlMQDxNc;
Authentication-Results: imail.cisco.com; header.From=mat@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/oregon verified; );
Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

Eliot Lear wrote:
> Russ,
>
>   
>> When IETF lists are housed somewhere other than ietf.org, they are 
>> supposed to include an archive recipient so that there is an archive 
>> available at ietf.org (perhaps in addition to the one kept at the 
>> place where the list is housed).
>>   
>>     
>
> I'll agree with Phill's conclusion on this one.
>
> I think there is probably convenience value to housing the mailing lists 
> at the IETF.  It allows for a single whitelist, reduction in those 
> annoying monthly messages that we eventually all filter into the 
> bitbucket.   Also, it  probably is easier to effect and audit policy 
> (such as we have any) in terms of message retention, uniform access, etc.
>   
The other things is when we start DKIM signing (HINT HINT), it will
give a single identity for reputation, etc to latch onto.

       Mike
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf