IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [marf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-marf-as-07.txt

Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <shmuel+mail-abuse-feedback-report@patriot.net> Fri, 10 February 2012 14:58 UTC

Return-Path: <shmuel+gen@patriot.net>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5055921F8610 for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 06:58:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.74
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.74 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.133, BAYES_00=-2.599, DATE_IN_PAST_12_24=0.992]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7rAzaMvMI9ko for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 06:58:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.patriot.net (smtp.patriot.net [209.249.176.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9EA221F84FC for <marf@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 06:58:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ECS60015111 (unknown [69.72.27.180]) (Authenticated sender: shmuel@patriot.net) by smtp.patriot.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96DE3F580A9 for <marf@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 09:44:18 -0500 (EST)
From: Shmuel Metz <shmuel+mail-abuse-feedback-report@patriot.net>
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 16:25:40 -0500
To: marf@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C9A7DCB9@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>
Mail-Copies-To: nobody
Organization: Atid/2
X-CompuServe-Customer: Yes
X-Coriate: NCAE@NewAmerica.org
X-Coriate: Mark Griffith <markgriffith@rocketmail.com>
X-Punge: Micro$oft
X-Terminate: SPA(GIS)
X-Treme: C&C,DWS
X-Mailer: MR/2 Internet Cruiser Edition for OS/2 v3.00.11.18 BETA/60
Message-Id: <20120210144418.96DE3F580A9@smtp.patriot.net>
Subject: Re: [marf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-marf-as-07.txt
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Message Abuse Report Format working group <MARF@IETF.ORG>
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:58:56 -0000

In
<F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C9A7DCB9@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>,
on 02/09/2012
   at 10:06 AM, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com> said:

>Neither DKIM nor SPF do anything to authenticate the header From
>domain.  What other mechanism are you proposing we introduce?

I'm not; I'm proposing that we be neutral on any potential future
authenticatiobn standards. Or is there reason to believe that there
will never be an RFC for signing domain names in the header?

-- 
     Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
     Atid/2        <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email