IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Rucus] comments on draft-niccolini-sipping-spam-feedback-00

"Martin Stiemerling" <Stiemerling@nw.neclab.eu> Tue, 26 February 2008 09:21 UTC

Return-Path: <rucus-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21C283A6BC4; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 01:21:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.584
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.584 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.147, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
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 vsuKspo03CdH; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 01:21:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48AA43A6957; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 01:21:42 -0800 (PST)
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 0B9543A6984 for <rucus@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 01:21:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
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 Vc3VnqmU+ssE for <rucus@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 01:21:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp0.neclab.eu (smtp0.neclab.eu [195.37.70.41]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24BAB3A6862 for <rucus@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 01:21:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost.office [127.0.0.1]) by smtp0.neclab.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9BAC2C002B4A; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:21:29 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Amavisd on Debian GNU/Linux (atlas2.office)
Received: from smtp0.neclab.eu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (atlas2.office [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pyePlwRV5kH9; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:21:29 +0100 (CET)
Received: from mx1.office (mx1.office [10.1.1.23]) by smtp0.neclab.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C63C92C000355; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:21:19 +0100 (CET)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:21:17 +0100
Message-ID: <5F6519BF2DE0404D99B7C75607FF76FF53DD92@mx1.office>
In-Reply-To: <47C382AF.7060109@cisco.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Rucus] comments on draft-niccolini-sipping-spam-feedback-00
Thread-Index: Ach4JPq1vKlCIiArS1Gdhn1GnP7c8QAMyBxw
References: <47C382AF.7060109@cisco.com>
From: Martin Stiemerling <Stiemerling@nw.neclab.eu>
To: Jonathan Rosenberg <jdrosen@cisco.com>, rucus@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Rucus] comments on draft-niccolini-sipping-spam-feedback-00
X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <rucus.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus>, <mailto:rucus-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/rucus>
List-Post: <mailto:rucus@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rucus-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus>, <mailto:rucus-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org

Hi Jonathan, 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rucus-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rucus-bounces@ietf.org] 
> On Behalf Of Jonathan Rosenberg
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 4:09 AM
> To: rucus@ietf.org
> Subject: [Rucus] comments on draft-niccolini-sipping-spam-feedback-00
> 
> Thanks for writing this, its a good topic to discuss.
> 
> One thing that wasn't clear; what is the benefit of signaling 
> something as spam to my proxy, as opposed to just putting the 
> sender on a black list. We have mechanisms defined already 
> for that, for example. I suspect its around sharing of the 
> spam classification with other users in the domain. Its worth 
> discussing this.

Putting senders on a black list might be good for a subset of users but not others. This also depends on how those blacklists are managed. Therefore, the approach to give feedback from users to a spam system, i.e., sharing knowledge among users. 

> 
> Seems easier if you just send the entire sip message as 
> content rather than picking apart pieces of it.
> 
> The mechanism is clearly intended to be between a UA and a 
> proxy in its own domain; however I didn't find that stated 
> till much deeper in the document. This should be clear up front.
> 
> In terms of specific protocols, I think SUB/NOT is a very 
> poor choice. 
> The proxy will require a subscription to EVERY UA, and the 
> events will be infrequent. This means a lot of overhead for 
> little data. I think you are much better off with an 
> asynchronous push, either PUBLISH or even non-sip. Maybe a 
> REST interface or something.

We're open to discuss the protocol choice for doing this. The SUB/NOT approach is a first attempt to integrate this with SIP and is open for further discussions.

  Martin


stiemerling@nw.neclab.eu   <== NEW ADDRESS

NEC Laboratories Europe - Network Research Division

NEC Europe Limited | Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL | Registered in England 2832014  
_______________________________________________
Rucus mailing list
Rucus@ietf.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email