IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [secdir] draft-ietf-appsawg-greylisting-06.txt SECDIR review

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com> Sun, 15 April 2012 03:10 UTC

Return-Path: <msk@cloudmark.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CF2121F86A4 for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 20:10:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.676
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.676 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.077, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 Lbha+LT7j4ct for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 20:10:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.cloudmark.com (cmgw1.cloudmark.com [208.83.136.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 805A521F867B for <secdir@ietf.org>; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 20:10:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com ([72.5.239.26]) by mail.cloudmark.com with bizsmtp id y3Ai1i0010as01C013AiDN; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 20:10:48 -0700
X-CMAE-Match: 0
X-CMAE-Score: 0.00
X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=NYRkJh/4 c=1 sm=1 a=QMZKka45TBd+hNGtXG2bIg==:17 a=ldJM1g7oyCcA:10 a=bYEoYnXPsMsA:10 a=zutiEJmiVI4A:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=pGLkceISAAAA:8 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=Sp55DQD6M8tC4k8PYxEA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=MSl-tDqOz04A:10 a=lZB815dzVvQA:10 a=QMZKka45TBd+hNGtXG2bIg==:117
Received: from EXCH-MBX901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::addf:849a:f71c:4a82]) by exch-htcas902.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::54de:dc60:5f3e:334%10]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 20:10:26 -0700
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-appsawg-greylisting.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-appsawg-greylisting.all@tools.ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-appsawg-greylisting-06.txt SECDIR review
Thread-Index: AQHNGqlLCHBRX3p6ZkeKUkT2karfFJabNAGw
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 03:10:24 +0000
Message-ID: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280F1E80@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <CAF4+nEFkDiy8c++ECGuQ4UECVPwFCHR3qkdkL6pR3TmV27NeRw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAF4+nEFkDiy8c++ECGuQ4UECVPwFCHR3qkdkL6pR3TmV27NeRw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [67.160.203.60]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cloudmark.com; s=default; t=1334459448; bh=MHuF/g72OGlxzts+G1gqueJqu0f7qTl3a/t3670vvAE=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=Mj/MFf0MeRE3+fBQPifX9fQlwtvgKLHpqkYoBomoZ2+RQQiWboEB2xtiyU1IyrFt4 qlvF0KpPyAu2NFghTR5DC8yv/zdbItrn2bnW7zMk6InzPcAqvy5C9ys9FFWAByHJVf QJlwcO21cUbdxJWPsjj+nOZ9SmhOzRiLqfEAT0b4=
Subject: Re: [secdir] draft-ietf-appsawg-greylisting-06.txt SECDIR review
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir>
List-Post: <mailto:secdir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 03:10:55 -0000

Hi Donald.  Thanks for your review.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Donald Eastlake [mailto:d3e3e3@gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2012 6:44 PM
> To: iesg@ietf.org; secdir@ietf.org; draft-ietf-appsawg-greylisting.all@tools.ietf.org
> Subject: draft-ietf-appsawg-greylisting-06.txt SECDIR review
> 
> The technique is very much heuristic so security consideration are,
> reasonably, fairly soft rather than the precise, hard edged
> formulations of cryptographic security. The discussion of variations in
> grey listing, typical spammer behavior, and potential spammer
> countermeasures all seem quite reasonable and complete. I do not think
> any additional security considerations are required.
> 
> EDITORIAL
> 
> In one place the draft says "when delivery of mail is timely." when I
> think it means "when delivery of mail is time critical." or "when
> delivery of mail must be timely.".

Indeed you're right on that point.  I'll adjust it after LC closes.

Thanks,
-MSK

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email