Re: [marf] Review of "draft-cai-smsc-mmsc-reporting-marf-00"

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Mon, 12 July 2010 18:11 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
X-Original-To: marf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 388D93A685E for <marf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 11:11:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.269
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.269 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, MANGLED_SPAM=2.3, 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 6xz4gUCguAKf for <marf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 11:11:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (www.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2D1E3A6BD7 for <marf@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 11:11:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=tana.it; s=test; t=1278958288; bh=KD/09ZLeafskBkASO04uSM40SPw8bfaHKQHqlscoNQc=; l=1138; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=EOpVQhesS/2VCaRnMsL7C9pGS5GaC2WNxmFZDq5TicX25jvqEgpbRliPfePh19t/L rposWOpSPnT23XvkHYSlErf5fQSi+grM5ip09oCp3sUZ5jFcKliUBQFG9JljJq/E2l soyYhzEGKHCezo8DmD7b3i1ncWyXJ+IQ7pdZCqgE=
Received: from [172.25.197.158] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.158]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 515, TLS: TLS1.0,256bits,RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 20:11:28 +0200 id 00000000005DC02B.000000004C3B5AD0.00003BBC
Message-ID: <4C3B5AD0.5090108@tana.it>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 20:11:28 +0200
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.10) Gecko/20100512 Thunderbird/3.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: marf@ietf.org
References: <001f01cb2120$2d2fab80$878f0280$@com> <20100712052206.2387.qmail@joyce.lan> <E41787825008234A9B8BB93D603C8B0F1703D6@bobo1.bobotek.net> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1007120302500.2799@joyce.lan>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1007120302500.2799@joyce.lan>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [marf] Review of "draft-cai-smsc-mmsc-reporting-marf-00"
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 18:11:30 -0000

On 12/Jul/10 09:26, John R Levine wrote:
>> Note that SpamRep does support Email abuse reporting over HTTP.  Perhaps
>> any overlap in this area should be discussed.

+1

> In the ASRG, we had a robust discussion about the way one might add a
> spam button to a MUA:
>
> http://wiki.asrg.sp.am/wiki/Adding_a_junk_button_to_MUAs
>
> One of the open questions is how the MUA sends the report back to the
> appropriate place, which in this case is similar to the SpamRep model,
> the mail server from which the MUA picked up the mail. HTTP is not a bad
> way to go, particularly on mobile devices where users are likely to have
> both e-mail and SMS/MMS spam to report.

There is a "RID Transport" [1] draft that may have parallel facets 
with this use of HTTP.  Although that is focused on the team-to-team 
step rather than the user-to-team one, several considerations about, 
say, TLS, port numbers, and URIs may be relevant.

I take this occasion to repeat that discussing any overlapping with 
the IODEF effort is probably worth too.

-- 
[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-moriarty-post-inch-rid-transport