IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [yam] [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-03

Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Sun, 07 March 2010 20:19 UTC

Return-Path: <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: yam@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: yam@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 631BA3A8DCF for <yam@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Mar 2010 12:19:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.382
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.382 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.217, 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 geXTKcLAstx8 for <yam@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Mar 2010 12:19:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ppsw-1.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-1.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.131]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A8F93A8E21 for <yam@ietf.org>; Sun, 7 Mar 2010 12:19:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-SpamDetails: not scanned
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/
Received: from hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.54]:43841) by ppsw-1.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.151]:25) with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:fanf2) id 1NoMwg-0000R1-3n (Exim 4.70) (return-path <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Sun, 07 Mar 2010 20:19:26 +0000
Received: from fanf2 (helo=localhost) by hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk) with local-esmtp id 1NoMwg-0004RJ-5E (Exim 4.67) (return-path <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Sun, 07 Mar 2010 20:19:26 +0000
Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2010 20:19:26 +0000
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
X-X-Sender: fanf2@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk
To: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
In-Reply-To: <01NKGR6SSL4G00DRKJ@mauve.mrochek.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.00.1003072018180.15648@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <4B8E515A.6060608@isode.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20100303103218.0ba092a0@resistor.net> <4B90ED1C.8040905@tana.it> <6.2.5.6.2.20100305051249.09f24f38@resistor.net> <4B923E1E.4070201@tana.it> <6.2.5.6.2.20100306054559.08fe2908@resistor.net> <4B92DEBC.9030209@dcrocker.net> <4B939BBC.6040102@isode.com> <01NKGR6SSL4G00DRKJ@mauve.mrochek.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LSU 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
Sender: Tony Finch <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>
Cc: dcrocker@bbiw.net, yam@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [yam] [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-03
X-BeenThere: yam@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Yet Another Mail working group discussion list <yam.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam>, <mailto:yam-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam>
List-Post: <mailto:yam@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:yam-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam>, <mailto:yam-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2010 20:19:36 -0000

On Sun, 7 Mar 2010, Ned Freed wrote:
>
>  Since MIME semantics are transport neutral the 8bitMIME option provides no
>  added capability to disseminate malware than is provided by unextended 7bit
>  SMTP.

+1

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot@dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/
GERMAN BIGHT HUMBER: SOUTHWEST 5 TO 7. MODERATE OR ROUGH. SQUALLY SHOWERS.
MODERATE OR GOOD.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email