IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Rucus] minutes (was: Re: IETF75: lunch on thursday?)

"Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com> Tue, 18 August 2009 23:09 UTC

Return-Path: <dwing@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F2B828C235 for <rucus@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:09:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.245
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.245 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.354, 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 tTrE70oEgN0s for <rucus@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:09:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC88A28C1DE for <rucus@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:09:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AsIEAPPQikqrR7O6/2dsb2JhbACLIbN/iC2QcgWEGYFT
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.43,404,1246838400"; d="scan'208";a="229674836"
Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Aug 2009 23:09:30 +0000
Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n7IN9UeD021894; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:09:30 -0700
Received: from dwingwxp01 ([10.32.240.197]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n7IN9Trq024780; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 23:09:29 GMT
From: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
To: 'Hendrik Scholz' <hs@123.org>, rucus@ietf.org
References: <4A6F0393.3070203@123.org> <4A6F6851.2090001@stpeter.im> <4A6F68C2.4090007@ericsson.com> <4A714654.5090504@123.org> <B94940C43117794C9432FF5FF0CCB506B6D26C@VENUS.office><618e24240907300125n149a4438gefb014c3a348a385@mail.gmail.com> <4A781914.2010704@123.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:09:29 -0700
Message-ID: <2e2701ca2058$f0ac6040$c5f0200a@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
In-Reply-To: <4A781914.2010704@123.org>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350
Thread-Index: AcoU9UFiFeJUkYnJQOWXvVelU4gLAALY0sfw
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2397; t=1250636970; x=1251500970; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim2002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=dwing@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Dan=20Wing=22=20<dwing@cisco.com> |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[Rucus]=20minutes=20(was=3A=20Re=3A=20= 20IETF75=3A=20lunch=20on=20thursday?) |Sender:=20; bh=2J+4OdrQve35idCRTtqtKF3wW6tN9j7FRc2VmAHKG0I=; b=QtL6koRBphgNftqjbnwY2sS2KRR/g+uYCcUzB2tAYdd/ZJ5ONEVVc/Lff6 pRAFzp51zAPMU/LVMVWnblD3s3eXhVkpx9ECpgKpTf3g9wwQFxtlxvvranCs LouNquIFsW;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=dwing@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; );
Subject: Re: [Rucus] minutes (was: Re: IETF75: lunch on thursday?)
X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" <rucus.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus>, <mailto:rucus-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rucus>
List-Post: <mailto:rucus@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rucus-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus>, <mailto:rucus-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 23:09:57 -0000

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rucus-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rucus-bounces@ietf.org] 
> On Behalf Of Hendrik Scholz
> Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 4:19 AM
> To: rucus@ietf.org
> Subject: [Rucus] minutes (was: Re: IETF75: lunch on thursday?)
> 
> Hi!
> 
> Well, there isn't much worth writing about regarding the last
> meeting.
> Victor Pascual Avila, Jan Janak, Nils Ohlmeier, Jan Seedorf and me
> gathered for some food.
> 
> Some companies/organizations cut back on spendings with regards
> to Anti-SPIT development/research and thus not too much is happening.
> No interesting new SPIT case was found (I guess that could
> be good or bad ;).
> 
> No consent was found during a discussion on the SPAM score draft.
> We have contradicting believes on whether this approach makes sense
> and if ITSPs would trust headers sent by remote/originating SSPs.

They wouldn't trust those headers.  That wasn't my intent when I
wrote the spam score draft, though.  Rather, my intent was exactly
how "X-Spam-Score:" is used in email today:  it is generated by
your own mailer -- which you trust enough to store your email
and send your email on your behalf.  Likewise, the SIP spam score 
header would be generated by your own, well-loved farm of SIP proxies
that, as a whole, are your ITSP.

This allows the ITSP to do spam scoring on your behalf and you
could then configure the last-hop proxy, or your own SIP UA,
to accept/reject/redirect incoming calls based on time of day,
the spam score, the from: field, or whatever other criteria are
interesting.

It's *far* down the future before an ITSPs would trust a spam
score generated by some other ITSP -- if ever.

-d


> I also mentioned that the VoIP Security Alliance (VoIPSA.org)
> needs some more traffic and an overhaul of their good but
> outdated whitepaper. If you have some time to spare it might
> be worth contributing.
> 
> Since IETF 71 I summarized a few issues and uploaded
> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-scholz-endpoint-security-00.txt
> Please post feedback on this to the list or directly to me.
> I plan on uploading an updated version in time for Hiroshima.
> 
> Cheers,
>  Hendrik
> 
> -- 
> Hendrik Scholz <hs@123.org>
> _______________________________________________
> Rucus mailing list
> Rucus@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email