From sm@resistor.net Tue Jan 3 10:15:39 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76D7C5E8002 for ; Tue, 3 Jan 2012 10:15:39 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.566 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.566 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.033, 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 OuX2-wEI2+S7 for ; Tue, 3 Jan 2012 10:15:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4FCC5E8003 for ; Tue, 3 Jan 2012 10:15:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q03IFXoI029157 for ; Tue, 3 Jan 2012 10:15:36 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1325614538; i=@resistor.net; bh=V6xgJdxDK1rXmcpGuQIpX8NVy0FAAZLOp1gel0SNxTE=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=i2hMU2O02EjHEh8iZBuEEu3SnAR5fnjMtF3Zk7U3L03A0NnWSer8AvBsYmw8hi4z9 5ILplCpkbn3kauXLfmkoM8eUQTg3benPweu4yvjER/ifB3XB0yUqtdKpcdNJcJJDYj o+udt7iUW49Kav9OBVm45W3VZD/lJw9QSy0GGYjA= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120103092127.09348b30@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2012 10:13:21 -0800 To: domainrep@ietf.org From: SM In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20111216231450.09c38530@elandnews.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: Re: [domainrep] Comments on draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-01 X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2012 18:15:39 -0000 Hi Murray, At 23:32 24-12-2011, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >Works for me, except I think it's appropriate to mention the media >type because otherwise someone reading this abstract has no context. Ok. >I changed it to "This memo specifies a vocabulary for >describing...", removing the quotes and changing "defines" to >"specifies", to make it clear the other document is the foundational one. Ok. > > I suggest reusing material from the Feedback Report Type Values > > registry instead of the terms in Section 3.1. > > > > Abuse: The email identifier is associated with unsolicited email > > or some other kind of email abuse > >This seems too general to be a useful assertion. Ok. > > Fraud: The email identifier is associated with some kind of fraud > > or phishing activity > >Modified the FRAUD definition to say, 'such as "phishing"'. I'll >probably be challenged to define that or refer to a definition of >it; I'll try to find one. From RFC 5901: 'The terms "phishing" and "fraud" are used interchangeably in this document to characterize broadly-launched social engineering attacks in which an electronic identity is misrepresented in an attempt to trick individuals into revealing their personal credentials (e.g., passwords, account numbers, personal information, ATM PINs, etc.)' > > Not-spam: The email identifier is associated with an indication about > > messages not considered to be spam > >Wouldn't you just assert the same thing here as one minus the SPAM score? That would be a "good mail" score. BTW, as there are several possibilities (assertions), the value may not be one minus the SPAM score. >This also seems a little too general. I prefer the current MALWARE >definition. Ok. >The email-id vocabulary is a set of keywords and extensions to the >base vocabulary defined in the "model" document. So I believe it >makes sense to put it where it is. Ok. >IDENTITY and SOURCES are email-id extensions, so moving them to >either the model or media-type document won't make sense. However, >if we feel they ought to be made mandatory parts of all >vocabularies, then that would make sense. You are discussing about the protocol and you mentioned what the client may do (the second sentence in the paragraph). >I agree with 2119, but do you really have to read 5598 to implement this? RFC 5598 is referenced from the Terminology and Definitions section. You are using "RFC5321.MailFrom" which is more of a RFC 5598 syntax than a RFC 5321 syntax. Either RFC 5321 and RFC 5322 have to be normative (please read those documents to understand this document) or you can use RFC 5598. RFC 6376 would have to be normative too. As most of the WG participants have probably read the RFCs mentioned above, they can easily tell what a signing domain is. A person reading this document only might not have any DKIM background. Regards, -sm From msk@cloudmark.com Wed Jan 4 11:04:50 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 254E021F8643 for ; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 11:04:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.528 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.528 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.071, 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 MeekG5ykwHiR for ; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 11:04:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F9C421F8688 for ; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 11:04:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from malice.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.71) by EXCH-HTCAS901.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.73) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 11:04:43 -0800 Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by malice.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.71]) with mapi; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 11:04:48 -0800 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "domainrep@ietf.org" Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 11:04:47 -0800 Thread-Topic: [domainrep] Comments on draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-01 Thread-Index: AczKQ7OjCcAXrBiLToeqxvZ0J8dMnAAzV3Hw Message-ID: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20111216231450.09c38530@elandnews.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120103092127.09348b30@resistor.net> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120103092127.09348b30@resistor.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [domainrep] Comments on draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-01 X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 19:04:50 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: domainrep-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:domainrep-bounces@ietf.org] On B= ehalf Of SM > Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 10:13 AM > To: domainrep@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [domainrep] Comments on draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-= 01 >=20 > > > Fraud: The email identifier is associated with some kind of fraud > > > or phishing activity > > > >Modified the FRAUD definition to say, 'such as "phishing"'. I'll > >probably be challenged to define that or refer to a definition of it; > >I'll try to find one. >=20 > From RFC 5901: >=20 >=20 > 'The terms "phishing" and "fraud" are used interchangeably in this > document to characterize broadly-launched social engineering attacks > in which an electronic identity is misrepresented in an attempt to > trick individuals into revealing their personal credentials > (e.g., passwords, account numbers, personal information, ATM PINs, etc= .)' Excellent, thanks. I've added that as an informative reference for the nex= t version. > > > Not-spam: The email identifier is associated with an indication abo= ut > > > messages not considered to be spam > > > >Wouldn't you just assert the same thing here as one minus the SPAM > score? >=20 > That would be a "good mail" score. BTW, as there are several > possibilities (assertions), the value may not be one minus the SPAM > score. I'm having trouble picturing this. "Good" and "bad" are opposites, so it s= eems to me that's a scale with each at opposite ends. Since we've constrai= ned the scale to the range [0, 1], isn't the value of one the same as sayin= g one minus the value of the other? Certainly other assertions are possible, but they would be orthogonal to th= is scale, and thus warrant an entirely different assertion. Can you give some examples of what you're thinking of? > > I agree with 2119, but do you really have to read 5598 to implement > > this? >=20 > RFC 5598 is referenced from the Terminology and Definitions section. > You are using "RFC5321.MailFrom" which is more of a RFC > 5598 syntax than a RFC 5321 syntax. Either RFC 5321 and RFC 5322 have > to be normative (please read those documents to understand this > document) or you can use RFC 5598. OK, fair enough. > RFC 6376 would have to be normative too. For the DKIM piece, if you use it, yes. > As most of the WG participants have probably read the RFCs mentioned > above, they can easily tell what a signing domain is. A person reading > this document only might not have any DKIM background. True, but if for example you only want to implement this for SPF, you don't= need to be familiar with DKIM. I think for optional or at least non-core = pieces, we go with informative references. -MSK From johnl@iecc.com Wed Jan 4 12:51:05 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E477111E809F for ; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 12:51:05 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.992 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.992 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.393, 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 1pQkjFCf5LbP for ; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 12:51:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4850811E8089 for ; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 12:51:05 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 8177 invoked from network); 4 Jan 2012 20:51:04 -0000 Received: from leila.iecc.com (64.57.183.34) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 4 Jan 2012 20:51:04 -0000 Date: 4 Jan 2012 20:50:42 -0000 Message-ID: <20120104205042.20208.qmail@joyce.lan> From: "John Levine" To: domainrep@ietf.org In-Reply-To: Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [domainrep] Comments on draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-01 X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 20:51:06 -0000 >> > > Not-spam: The email identifier is associated with an indication about >> > > messages not considered to be spam ... >> That would be a "good mail" score. BTW, as there are several >> possibilities (assertions), the value may not be one minus the SPAM >> score. > > I'm having trouble picturing this. "Good" and "bad" are opposites, so > it seems to me that's a scale with each at opposite ends. Since we've > constrained the scale to the range [0, 1], isn't the value of one the > same as saying one minus the value of the other? I get a lot of mail which isn't really spam, but isn't really not spam either, e.g., I bought something six years ago, they've been sending me ads every since, but I've never responded to one. For those of us who remember our undergraduate logic classes, I'm saying this is not a model with an excluded middle. The options aren't just Spam and Not-Spam, they're Spam, Not-Spam, and Other. R's, John From msk@cloudmark.com Wed Jan 4 13:02:37 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75B0D11E80C1 for ; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 13:02:37 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.527 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.527 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.072, 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 EV8CX5tobbKM for ; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 13:02:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15C9E11E80A6 for ; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 13:02:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from malice.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.71) by EXCH-HTCAS901.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.73) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 13:02:31 -0800 Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by malice.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.71]) with mapi; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 13:02:36 -0800 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "domainrep@ietf.org" Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 13:02:35 -0800 Thread-Topic: [domainrep] Comments on draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-01 Thread-Index: AczLIpdq6ZqntBHqSQatyoaibt2rSwAAXu0A Message-ID: References: <20120104205042.20208.qmail@joyce.lan> In-Reply-To: <20120104205042.20208.qmail@joyce.lan> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [domainrep] Comments on draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-01 X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 21:02:37 -0000 PiAtLS0tLU9yaWdpbmFsIE1lc3NhZ2UtLS0tLQ0KPiBGcm9tOiBKb2huIExldmluZSBbbWFpbHRv OmpvaG5sQGllY2MuY29tXQ0KPiBTZW50OiBXZWRuZXNkYXksIEphbnVhcnkgMDQsIDIwMTIgMTI6 NTEgUE0NCj4gVG86IGRvbWFpbnJlcEBpZXRmLm9yZw0KPiBDYzogTXVycmF5IFMuIEt1Y2hlcmF3 eQ0KPiBTdWJqZWN0OiBSZTogW2RvbWFpbnJlcF0gQ29tbWVudHMgb24gZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1yZXB1 dGUtZW1haWwtaWRlbnRpZmllcnMtMDENCj4gDQo+IEkgZ2V0IGEgbG90IG9mIG1haWwgd2hpY2gg aXNuJ3QgcmVhbGx5IHNwYW0sIGJ1dCBpc24ndCByZWFsbHkgbm90IHNwYW0NCj4gZWl0aGVyLCBl LmcuLCBJIGJvdWdodCBzb21ldGhpbmcgc2l4IHllYXJzIGFnbywgdGhleSd2ZSBiZWVuIHNlbmRp bmcgbWUNCj4gYWRzIGV2ZXJ5IHNpbmNlLCBidXQgSSd2ZSBuZXZlciByZXNwb25kZWQgdG8gb25l Lg0KPiANCj4gRm9yIHRob3NlIG9mIHVzIHdobyByZW1lbWJlciBvdXIgdW5kZXJncmFkdWF0ZSBs b2dpYyBjbGFzc2VzLCBJJ20NCj4gc2F5aW5nIHRoaXMgaXMgbm90IGEgbW9kZWwgd2l0aCBhbiBl eGNsdWRlZCBtaWRkbGUuICBUaGUgb3B0aW9ucyBhcmVuJ3QNCj4ganVzdCBTcGFtIGFuZCBOb3Qt U3BhbSwgdGhleSdyZSBTcGFtLCBOb3QtU3BhbSwgYW5kIE90aGVyLg0KDQpJIHRoaW5rIHdlJ3Jl IHRhbGtpbmcgYWJvdXQgdHdvIG9ydGhvZ29uYWwgYXNzZXJ0aW9ucyB0aGVuOiBTcGFtIGFuZCBP dGhlciAod2hlcmUgc29tZXRoaW5nIG90aGVyIHRoYW4gIk90aGVyIiB3b3VsZCBiZSB3YXksIHdh eSBiZXR0ZXIpLg0KDQo= From dhc@dcrocker.net Wed Jan 4 13:11:07 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27BBB11E80BF for ; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 13:11:07 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -8.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] 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 m8YRTiAQESaM for ; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 13:11:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F0A021F859F for ; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 13:11:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.11] (adsl-67-127-55-53.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [67.127.55.53]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q04LAe91009136 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 4 Jan 2012 13:10:45 -0800 Message-ID: <4F04C04D.1010700@dcrocker.net> Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 13:10:37 -0800 From: Dave CROCKER Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Levine References: <20120104205042.20208.qmail@joyce.lan> In-Reply-To: <20120104205042.20208.qmail@joyce.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Wed, 04 Jan 2012 13:10:46 -0800 (PST) Cc: domainrep@ietf.org Subject: Re: [domainrep] Comments on draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-01 X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 21:11:07 -0000 On 1/4/2012 12:50 PM, John Levine wrote: > I get a lot of mail which isn't really spam, but isn't really not spam > either, e.g., I bought something six years ago, they've been sending me > ads every since, but I've never responded to one. > > For those of us who remember our undergraduate logic classes, I'm saying > this is not a model with an excluded middle. The options aren't just Spam > and Not-Spam, they're Spam, Not-Spam, and Other. While the concern you have strikes me as valid, your, ummmm, logic does not. The problem, here, is with the very fluid definition of spam, not with the use of a binary scale. Most folk consider mail of the type you cite as spam. Or they consider it acceptable. That is, few folk have a model of gradation, but different folk put the demarcation in different places. The underlying issue, then, is that the assignment of a spam or not-spam label is highly subjective, for most operations. This is a bit of subtlety that is almost certainly unproductive to pursue. We aren't going to create more labels here and we aren't going to get a more nuanced public discussion, IMO. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From johnl@iecc.com Wed Jan 4 13:30:19 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2699221F8614 for ; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 13:30:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.4 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.4 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.200, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, 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 JtzQdzWSxA3L for ; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 13:30:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7318721F860F for ; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 13:30:18 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 25866 invoked from network); 4 Jan 2012 21:30:15 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:vbr-info:user-agent:cleverness; s=6509.4f04c4e7.k1201; bh=2N8TFOHFHaTfQQdXRWsyxb15y76KoPAhDLYZyGjSDNw=; b=Yxn1UmZVIshMHQW1KLZk5Mkv0+ACYPYDi1fCgH86+gDh00OWwL/byOeAyViqhgg4ZQ41QGjrqOlyDXXmwKJKQ0hypSrdrKX7e0s5gO535k2gXNFzKZl9+oDW1G58NfOUpVOrPR+hxe/5fqVeLMSMq4jHo1lMxiKPYs4m+nqjKJo= VBR-Info: md=iecc.com; mc=all; mv=dwl.spamhaus.org Received: (ofmipd 127.0.0.1) with (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 4 Jan 2012 21:29:53 -0000 Date: 4 Jan 2012 16:30:15 -0500 Message-ID: From: "John R. Levine" To: dcrocker@bbiw.net In-Reply-To: <4F04C04D.1010700@dcrocker.net> References: <20120104205042.20208.qmail@joyce.lan> <4F04C04D.1010700@dcrocker.net> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) Cleverness: None detected MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: domainrep@ietf.org Subject: Re: [domainrep] Comments on draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-01 X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 21:30:19 -0000 > That is, few folk have a model of gradation, but different folk put the > demarcation in different places. The underlying issue, then, is that the > assignment of a spam or not-spam label is highly subjective, for most > operations. I didn't explain it very well. Let's say you have two scores for a message, one for spamminess, one for goodness. My point is that one score isn't necessarily the negative of the other. R's, John From sm@resistor.net Wed Jan 4 13:43:54 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 101D711E80B6 for ; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 13:43:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.579 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.579 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.020, 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 zkq7uoC3MqcP for ; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 13:43:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B71DD11E80A6 for ; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 13:43:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q04Lhl4t011283 for ; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 13:43:51 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1325713432; i=@resistor.net; bh=9zGiJRBwtOMFRjx3HdNSsVQ53G8WBo4EhgyH/v7+Iek=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=0Zoc8ZZQ/RkmV6X1ZbkCbnBlsi0aArihqlZUmM1pgNKN8I34JGKp3iFU+1t8ASWo/ XobuTC+iF28cHpsoLDe9Plkscf+KIDVW7xnQGc9BJf9oeQu4Nbq9s+AaefJzPZDuJ5 Di5/5v03x7sN8rC8C/0ftNsOwnTitlO1CpSFys6M= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120104133658.09de32f8@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 13:43:05 -0800 To: domainrep@ietf.org From: SM In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20111216231450.09c38530@elandnews.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120103092127.09348b30@resistor.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: Re: [domainrep] Comments on draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-01 X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 21:43:54 -0000 Hi Murray, At 11:04 04-01-2012, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >I'm having trouble picturing this. "Good" and "bad" are opposites, >so it seems to me that's a scale with each at opposite ends. Since >we've constrained the scale to the range [0, 1], isn't the value of >one the same as saying one minus the value of the other? > >Certainly other assertions are possible, but they would be >orthogonal to this scale, and thus warrant an entirely different assertion. > >Can you give some examples of what you're thinking of? John Levine explained it better than I could. BTW, I was thinking in terms of scores and not about adding more labels. Regards, -sm From dhc@dcrocker.net Wed Jan 4 14:33:07 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89E4121F86AE for ; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 14:33:07 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] 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 tjWLe9fhl6hR for ; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 14:33:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE08621F85D7 for ; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 14:33:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.11] (adsl-67-127-55-53.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [67.127.55.53]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q04MWvqi010529 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 4 Jan 2012 14:33:03 -0800 Message-ID: <4F04D397.9020205@dcrocker.net> Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 14:32:55 -0800 From: Dave CROCKER Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "John R. Levine" References: <20120104205042.20208.qmail@joyce.lan> <4F04C04D.1010700@dcrocker.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Wed, 04 Jan 2012 14:33:03 -0800 (PST) Cc: domainrep@ietf.org Subject: Re: [domainrep] Comments on draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-01 X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 22:33:07 -0000 On 1/4/2012 1:30 PM, John R. Levine wrote: >> That is, few folk have a model of gradation, but different folk put the >> demarcation in different places. The underlying issue, then, is that the >> assignment of a spam or not-spam label is highly subjective, for most operations. > > I didn't explain it very well. Let's say you have two scores for a message, one > for spamminess, one for goodness. My point is that one score isn't necessarily > the negative of the other. As an abstract exercise, I can believe that. However in terms of filtering engine pragmatics, that does not match how I've always understood them to operate. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From ajs@anvilwalrusden.com Wed Jan 4 14:46:58 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36E1111E80FA for ; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 14:46:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.766 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.766 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.167, BAYES_00=-2.599] 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 C9Ap-HGQpjpj for ; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 14:46:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCBBA11E80E4 for ; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 14:46:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from crankycanuck.ca (69-196-144-227.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.227]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 11EDA1ECB41C for ; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 22:46:57 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 17:46:55 -0500 From: Andrew Sullivan To: domainrep@ietf.org Message-ID: <20120104224655.GE33087@crankycanuck.ca> References: <20120104205042.20208.qmail@joyce.lan> <4F04C04D.1010700@dcrocker.net> <4F04D397.9020205@dcrocker.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4F04D397.9020205@dcrocker.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: Re: [domainrep] Comments on draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-01 X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 22:46:58 -0000 On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 02:32:55PM -0800, Dave CROCKER wrote: > > However in terms of filtering engine pragmatics, that does not match > how I've always understood them to operate. I took John's point to be that that might be a problem. A From dhc@dcrocker.net Wed Jan 4 15:07:20 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7397A21F87C7 for ; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 15:07:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.266 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.266 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.667, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] 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 EbsnTgEyoK7K for ; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 15:07:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D721D21F87C6 for ; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 15:07:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.11] (adsl-67-127-55-53.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [67.127.55.53]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q04N7CNb011103 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 15:07:19 -0800 Message-ID: <4F04DB9E.3040804@dcrocker.net> Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 15:07:10 -0800 From: Dave CROCKER Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: domainrep@ietf.org References: <20120104205042.20208.qmail@joyce.lan> <4F04C04D.1010700@dcrocker.net> <4F04D397.9020205@dcrocker.net> <20120104224655.GE33087@crankycanuck.ca> In-Reply-To: <20120104224655.GE33087@crankycanuck.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Wed, 04 Jan 2012 15:07:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [domainrep] Comments on draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-01 X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 23:07:20 -0000 On 1/4/2012 2:46 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 02:32:55PM -0800, Dave CROCKER wrote: >> However in terms of filtering engine pragmatics, that does not match >> how I've always understood them to operate. > > I took John's point to be that that might be a problem. What I'm not clear on is whether it is an actual problem experienced by the folk running real reputation services (either providing or consuming rep services) or whether it's more conceptually problematic. If only the latter, we probably have some challenge at justifying pursuing it. It adds complexity, but absent a compelling need. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From clewis+ietf@mustelids.ca Wed Jan 4 16:56:23 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF2E521F8577 for ; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 16:56:23 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.02 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.02 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.068, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 E9d0o-QQRokR for ; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 16:56:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.mustelids.ca (unknown [174.35.130.2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2899721F8556 for ; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 16:56:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.0.8] (otter.mustelids.ca [192.168.0.8]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.mustelids.ca (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id q050v2vU028859 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 19:57:06 -0500 Message-ID: <4F04F52C.7010603@mustelids.ca> Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 19:56:12 -0500 From: Chris Lewis User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.8.1.23) Gecko/20090812 Thunderbird/2.0.0.23 Mnenhy/0.7.6.666 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: domainrep@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [domainrep] WG Management X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2012 00:56:24 -0000 Hi all, Dave, Pete (our AD) and I have been discussing a number of things to help make the Repute WG can be productive. As many of you are aware, the topic being covered by the working group is inherently difficult and has a long history of difficult participant behavior in two previous working groups and other IETF-related venues. This has tended to reduce participation by otherwise-valuable representatives of the community. I know that I am one of those who have been reluctant to participate in the past on these topics for that very reason. IETF process and culture is based on open participation. Anyone can participate in any working group. But this also means that participants must strive to be constructive. This obviously means maintaining a professional demeanor, but it also means staying within scope. Failure in either produces a distracted and likely hostile environment. Which winds up meaning that the WG discourages participation and fails to move forward. Anyone can have a bad day and fail in one way or the other. Patterns of failure are another matter, and is where we, as WG management, must act. Some working groups are managed loosely because they're on relatively non-controversial subject matter, however the Repute Working Group is not one of those. This message is being sent to ensure that participants are aware of the rules governing participation and enforcement procedures. Here is the formal IETF documentation for procedures to enforce acceptable participation: 1. RFC 2418: IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures > 3.3 Session Management ... To facilitate making forward > progress, a Working Group Chair may wish to decide to reject > or defer the input from a member, based upon the following > criteria: > > Old The input pertains to a topic that already has been resolved > and is redundant with information previously available; > > Minor The input is new and pertains to a topic that has already > been resolved, but it is felt to be of minor import to the > existing decision; > > Timing The input pertains to a topic that the working group > has not yet opened for discussion; or > > Scope The input is outside of the scope of the working group > charter. 2. RFC 3934 as it amends RFC 2418 section 3.2: > As in face-to-face sessions, occasionally one or more > individuals may engage in behavior on a mailing list that, in > the opinion of the WG chair, is disruptive to the WG process. > Unless the disruptive behavior is severe enough that it must be > stopped immediately, the WG chair should attempt to discourage > the disruptive behavior by communicating directly with the > offending individual. If the behavior persists, the WG chair > should send at least one public warning on the WG mailing list. > As a last resort and typically after one or more explicit > warnings and consultation with the responsible Area Director, > the WG chair may suspend the mailing list posting privileges of > the disruptive individual for a period of not more than 30 days... THEREFORE: Dave and I will be actively managing the Repute Working Group with respect to any egregious behavior or any tendency towards participation that qualifies under the criteria listed under RFC 2418, Section 3.2 (as amended) or Section 3.3, and will use the enforcement procedures defined in RFC 3934 if necessary. From dotis@mail-abuse.org Wed Jan 4 19:01:19 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4856121F85AD for ; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 19:01:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.123 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.123 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.476, 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 gbY2CkXXI-sF for ; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 19:01:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailserv.mail-abuse.org (mailserv.mail-abuse.org [150.70.98.118]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB37321F8541 for ; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 19:01:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from US-DOUGO-MAC.local (sjdcluxgateway2.sdi.trendnet.org [10.31.37.9]) by mailserv.mail-abuse.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 050F417403A1 for ; Thu, 5 Jan 2012 03:01:19 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4F051282.5070305@mail-abuse.org> Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 19:01:22 -0800 From: Douglas Otis User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: domainrep@ietf.org References: <20120104205042.20208.qmail@joyce.lan> <4F04C04D.1010700@dcrocker.net> <4F04D397.9020205@dcrocker.net> <20120104224655.GE33087@crankycanuck.ca> <4F04DB9E.3040804@dcrocker.net> In-Reply-To: <4F04DB9E.3040804@dcrocker.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [domainrep] Comments on draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-01 X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2012 03:01:19 -0000 On 1/4/12 3:07 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote: > On 1/4/2012 2:46 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 02:32:55PM -0800, Dave CROCKER wrote: > >> However in terms of filtering engine pragmatics, that does not > >> match how I've always understood them to operate. > > I took John's point to be that that might be a problem. > What I'm not clear on is whether it is an actual problem experienced > by the folk running real reputation services (either providing or > consuming rep services) or whether it's more conceptually > problematic. > > If only the latter, we probably have some challenge at justifying > pursuing it. It adds complexity, but absent a compelling need. Dave, Whether some identity based upon either an IP address or domain, acted in some manner must be predicated upon authentication of said identity's involvement with the act of transmitting the message to a specific recipient. Blocking the wrong domain is undesired, unwise, and potentially expensive. Assessing acts based upon DKIM signatures alone will be problematic, even for statistical ratings offering shades of gray assessments. While DKIM confirms which domain signed a message's content, it does not confirm whether this domain transmitted the message to a specific recipient. It seems this limitation leaves DKIM unsuitable for assessing behaviors related with spamming or even the sending of malicious content. Such an assessment requires authenticated outbound MTAs as a purely practical matter to include the act of transmission to specific recipients. Perhaps the malware issue might be addressed by asserting conventions for labeling whether a message is known to contain malware. Unfortunately such exceptions could be used to exploit those who fail to heed or understand the warning. After all, sending malware may occur through agreement between specific individuals, but could represent a dangerous act when sent to unaware recipients. A common ploy is to encrypt content to ensure it passes content filters where the passphrase is often included within the message body. Even labeling would be difficult to assess based upon the use of DKIM signatures, since any intercepted message could be replayed with the intent of damaging the domain's reputation. -Doug From internet-drafts@ietf.org Fri Jan 13 12:39:16 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBD1621F862A; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 12:39:16 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, 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 kVBEJZOximaX; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 12:39:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50F5B21F859A; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 12:39:16 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.64p1 Message-ID: <20120113203916.22594.46617.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 12:39:16 -0800 Cc: domainrep@ietf.org Subject: [domainrep] I-D Action: draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-02.txt X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 20:39:17 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Reputation Services Working Group of = the IETF. Title : A Reputation Vocabulary for Email Identifiers Author(s) : Nathaniel Borenstein Murray S. Kucherawy Filename : draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-02.txt Pages : 7 Date : 2012-01-13 This document defines a vocabulary for describing assertions a reputation service provider can make about email identifers, for use with the application/reputon media type. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-02.= txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-02.t= xt From internet-drafts@ietf.org Fri Jan 13 12:39:21 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F8C421F8643; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 12:39:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, 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 alK-6VdZlsHw; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 12:39:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D490A21F8635; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 12:39:20 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.64p1 Message-ID: <20120113203920.22612.65503.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 12:39:20 -0800 Cc: domainrep@ietf.org Subject: [domainrep] I-D Action: draft-ietf-repute-query-http-01.txt X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 20:39:21 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Reputation Services Working Group of = the IETF. Title : Reputation Data Interchange using HTTP and XML Author(s) : Nathaniel Borenstein Murray S. Kucherawy Filename : draft-ietf-repute-query-http-01.txt Pages : 7 Date : 2012-01-13 This document defines a mechanism to conduct queries for reputation information using the Domain Name System. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-repute-query-http-01.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-repute-query-http-01.txt From internet-drafts@ietf.org Fri Jan 13 12:39:26 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8FA121F865A; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 12:39:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, 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 0F18gDNahT8A; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 12:39:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DBA321F863B; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 12:39:26 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.64p1 Message-ID: <20120113203926.22612.16038.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 12:39:26 -0800 Cc: domainrep@ietf.org Subject: [domainrep] I-D Action: draft-ietf-repute-media-type-01.txt X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 20:39:27 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Reputation Services Working Group of = the IETF. Title : A Media Type for Reputation Interchange Author(s) : Nathaniel Borenstein Murray S. Kucherawy Filename : draft-ietf-repute-media-type-01.txt Pages : 12 Date : 2012-01-13 This document defines a media type for exchanging reputation information about an arbitrary class of object. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-repute-media-type-01.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-repute-media-type-01.txt From msk@cloudmark.com Fri Jan 13 12:42:41 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14E6521F8649 for ; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 12:42:41 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.58 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.58 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.018, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 sCCAfo0DU6Ig for ; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 12:42:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A976321F861A for ; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 12:42:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from malice.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.71) by EXCH-HTCAS901.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.73) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 12:42:12 -0800 Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by malice.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.71]) with mapi; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 12:42:20 -0800 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "domainrep@ietf.org" Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 12:42:18 -0800 Thread-Topic: Draft updates Thread-Index: AczSM9eOif98fqhuRVS/Gxk/qd03aw== Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C15887EXCHC2corpclo_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [domainrep] Draft updates X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 20:42:41 -0000 --_000_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C15887EXCHC2corpclo_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all, happy new year! I've just posted updates to the three drafts I'm maintaining. They essenti= ally incorporate the feedback I'd received so far either by email or in Tai= pei that seemed to be either innocuous, corrections to procedural things (e= .g. IANA stuff), or reasonable reorganizations of material. I have not, for example, removed or changed anything that's involved in an = ongoing discussion such as the choice of a lightweight protocol mechanism o= r the URI template complexity question. As work I'm doing in other areas is winding down I have more time coming up= to be able to work on this again. Looking forward to it. -MSK --_000_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C15887EXCHC2corpclo_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi all, happy ne= w year!

 

I’ve just posted updates to the three drafts I’m main= taining.  They essentially incorporate the feedback I’d received= so far either by email or in Taipei that seemed to be either innocuous, co= rrections to procedural things (e.g. IANA stuff), or reasonable reorganizat= ions of material.

 

<= p class=3DMsoNormal>I have not, for example, removed or changed anything th= at’s involved in an ongoing discussion such as the choice of a lightw= eight protocol mechanism or the URI template complexity question.

 

As work= I’m doing in other areas is winding down I have more time coming up = to be able to work on this again.  Looking forward to it.

 

-MSK<= /o:p>

= --_000_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C15887EXCHC2corpclo_-- From diego@tid.es Mon Jan 16 05:43:46 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A76C621F85DD; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 05:43:46 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.073 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.073 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.074, BAYES_50=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] 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 Puj19AxAmwpa; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 05:43:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from correo-bck.tid.es (correo-bck.tid.es [195.235.93.200]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A2F821F85CF; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 05:43:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from sbrightmailg02.hi.inet (Sbrightmailg02.hi.inet [10.95.78.105]) by tid.hi.inet (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LXW00APH8SR29@tid.hi.inet>; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 14:43:39 +0100 (MET) Received: from vanvan (vanvan.hi.inet [10.95.78.49]) by sbrightmailg02.hi.inet (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id 4F.04.02643.B89241F4; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 14:43:39 +0100 (CET) Received: from correo.tid.es (mailhost.hi.inet [10.95.64.100]) by tid.hi.inet (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPS id <0LXW00APE8SR29@tid.hi.inet>; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 14:43:39 +0100 (MET) Received: from EXCLU2K7.hi.inet ([10.95.67.65]) by htcasmad1.hi.inet ([192.168.0.1]) with mapi; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 14:43:39 +0100 Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 14:43:38 +0100 From: DIEGO LOPEZ GARCIA To: "therightkey@ietf.org" Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-language: en-US Content-transfer-encoding: base64 Accept-Language: en-US Thread-topic: EFF's Sovereign Keys Thread-index: AczUVNpyTMTOa4BtTAeY+91PStdUMQ== acceptlanguage: en-US X-AuditID: 0a5f4e69-b7f6b6d000000a53-fa-4f14298b4425 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFmphleLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42Lhivcz1O3WFPE3uHJXzmLP8YmsFjsuXWG1 +HjhJ4sDs8eSJT+ZAhijuGxSUnMyy1KL9O0SuDLuTrzGUtDCUbH/0SHmBsYX7F2MnBwSAiYS bw5dYYKwxSQu3FvPBmILCWxjlPi617KLkQvIfsoocfvxY1YIp5FRYv+2NywgVSwCqhJr/l8G 62YTUJdoOfoNLC4sICux6+slsLiIgKFE99xXYDazgJ/E3fuTmEFsXgFLid1357FD2IISPybf A+rlAKpRl5gyJReiXFyiufUmC4StKDFtUQMjiM0IdOj3U2ugxitJtD+Yyg7SKiKgJ3FtdyBE iajEnfb1jBB/CUgs2XOeGcIWlXj5+B/rBEbRWUgWz0JYPAvJ4llIFi9gZFnFKFacVJSZnlGS m5iZk25gpJeRqZeZl1qyiRESJZk7GJfvVDnEKMDBqMTD+7BQ2F+INbGsuDL3EKMkB5OSKK+p hoi/EF9SfkplRmJxRnxRaU5q8SFGCQ5mJRHeNn2gct6UxMqq1KJ8mJQMB4eSBO9rkDbBotT0 1Iq0zBxgKoBJM3FwgrTzALWvAqnhLS5IzC3OTIfIn2KUlBLnjQBJCIAkMkrz4HpfMYoDHSkM 0cYDTFpwXa+ABjIBDcxpFQIZWJKIkJJqYDQuCawK2xky6UWkvX/DruqTufEbsy/Fp34vNJiu 9mWWzflWqYZ93F9tF03s2cizfdoF/w0yTE3Z7j6FaYprCpbfsxeMDQq2qe/awvIxLVfq0K/8 8g9XmJXF+wyz1k6TPpFhs/r52rW/LheEfgx1mPG0sk3E8lP8q1KdpEsmoV73w5faLrmwToml OCPRUIu5qDgRAAAU/CAXAwAA Cc: "domainrep@ietf.org" , "dane@ietf.org" Subject: [domainrep] EFF's Sovereign Keys X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 13:43:46 -0000 SGksDQoNCkhhdmUgeW91IHBlb3BsZSBoZWFyZCBvZiB0aGlzPw0KDQpodHRwczovL3d3dy5lZmYu b3JnL3NvdmVyZWlnbi1rZXlzDQoNCkl0IGxvb2tzIHZlcnkgbXVjaCBjb25uZWN0ZWQgdG8gdGhl IGRlY2xhcmF0aW9uIG9mIHRoZXJpZ2h0a2V5LCBhbmQgY2VydGFpbmx5IHJlbGF0ZWQgdG8gREFO RSBhbmQgUkVQVVRFLg0KDQpCZSBnb29kZSwNCg0KLS0NCiJFc3RhIHZleiBubyBmYWxsYXJlbW9z LCBEb2N0b3IgSW5maWVybm8iDQoNCkRyIERpZWdvIFIuIExvcGV6DQpUZWxlZm9uaWNhIEkrRA0K DQplLW1haWw6IGRpZWdvQHRpZC5lcw0KVGVsOiAgICArMzQgOTEzIDEyOSAwNDENCk1vYmlsZTog KzM0IDY4MiAwNTEgMDkxDQotLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LQ0KDQoNCkVzdGUgbWVuc2FqZSBzZSBkaXJpZ2UgZXhjbHVzaXZhbWVudGUgYSBzdSBkZXN0aW5h dGFyaW8uIFB1ZWRlIGNvbnN1bHRhciBudWVzdHJhIHBvbMOtdGljYSBkZSBlbnbDrW8geSByZWNl cGNpw7NuIGRlIGNvcnJlbyBlbGVjdHLDs25pY28gZW4gZWwgZW5sYWNlIHNpdHVhZG8gbcOhcyBh YmFqby4NClRoaXMgbWVzc2FnZSBpcyBpbnRlbmRlZCBleGNsdXNpdmVseSBmb3IgaXRzIGFkZHJl c3NlZS4gV2Ugb25seSBzZW5kIGFuZCByZWNlaXZlIGVtYWlsIG9uIHRoZSBiYXNpcyBvZiB0aGUg dGVybXMgc2V0IG91dCBhdA0KaHR0cDovL3d3dy50aWQuZXMvRVMvUEFHSU5BUy9kaXNjbGFpbWVy LmFzcHgNCg== From dhc@dcrocker.net Tue Jan 17 09:02:15 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B5F421F8606 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 09:02:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -8.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_INVITATION=-2, GB_I_LETTER=-2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] 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 VGX2cTGgxaeX for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 09:02:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E27021F847C for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 09:02:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.11] (adsl-67-124-148-117.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [67.124.148.117]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q0HH28cn023079 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 09:02:13 -0800 Message-ID: <4F15A98E.1090706@dcrocker.net> Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 09:02:06 -0800 From: Dave CROCKER Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "domainrep@ietf.org" References: <20120113193029.AFB0621F8448@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20120113193029.AFB0621F8448@ietfa.amsl.com> X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <20120113193029.AFB0621F8448@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Tue, 17 Jan 2012 09:02:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: [domainrep] Fwd: IETF 83 - Registration and Hotel Reservation Cut-off X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 17:02:15 -0000 FYI. d/ -------- Original Message -------- Subject: IETF 83 - Registration and Hotel Reservation Cut-off Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 11:30:29 -0800 (PST) From: IETF Secretariat To: IETF Announcement list CC: wgchairs@ietf.org, 83all@ietf.org, irsg@irtf.org 83rd IETF Meeting Paris, France March 25-30, 2012 Host: TBD Meeting venue: Le Palais des Congres de Paris http://www.viparis.com/Viparis/exhibition-paris/site/Palais-Congres-Paris-Paris/en/4 Register online at: http://www.ietf.org/meetings/83/ 1. Registration 2. Visas & Letters of Invitation 3. Accommodations: Le Meridien Reservation Cut-off is January 23, 2012 4. Companion Program 1. Registration A. Early-Bird Registration - USD 650.00 Pay by Friday, 16 March 2012 1700 PT (UTC -7) B. After Early-Bird cutoff - USD 800.00 C. Full-time Student Registrations - USD 150.00 (with proper ID) D. One Day Pass Registration - USD 350.00 E. Registration Cancellation Cut-off for registration cancellation is Monday, 19 March 2012 at 1700 PT (UTC -7). Cancellations are subject to a 10% (ten percent)cancellation fee if requested by that date and time. F. Online Registration and Payment ends Friday, 23 March 2012,1700 local Paris time. G. On-site Registration starting Sunday, 25 March 2012 at 1100 local Paris time. 2. Visas & Letters of Invitation: Information on Visiting France, please visit: http://www.consulfrance-sanfrancisco.org/spip.php?rubrique201 After you complete the registration process, you can request an electronic IETF Letter of Invitation. You may also request one at a later time by following the link provided in the confirmation email. Orange has graciously offered to provide letters of invitation (LOIs) for those who needs visas to enter France. In order to add this functionality, the letter of invitation system will be offline next Tuesday (Monday is a holiday in the United States). We expect to start providing IETF and Host LOIs on Wednesday of next week, and will send a notice out as soon as the system is operational. 3. Accommodations The IETF is holding blocks of guest rooms at 2 hotels in Paris: The Hotel Concorde La Fayette (Headquarter Hotel - connected to meeting venue) and the Le Meridien Etoile (directly across the street from the meeting venue) Room rates include one complimentary daily buffet breakfast and complimentary in-room high-speed Internet access. All service fees and VAT are included in guest room rates. NOTE: Continental Breakfast will NOT be served at the meeting venue. Reservations Cut off Date: 23 January 2012 at the Le Meridien 09 March 2012 at Hotel Concorde ****Cancellation Policy at Le Meridien**** Guest Cancellation: - There is no charge if room is cancelled prior to March 2012 - There is a one night charge for cancellations made between 09 March and 23 March 2012 - If the room is cancelled from 23 March 2012 or if the guest is a "no-show" then the amount of the entire stay will be charged onto the guest's credit card. Early Departure Fee: Early departure will be charged for the duration of the stay as reserved if changes are made after March 23, 2012. Guest Substitution: Guest name substitute may be made by contacting Corinne Vissenberg . ****Cancellation Policy at Hotel Concorde*** Reservation Deposit and Cancellations: - Guaranteed reservations will be held until the night of the arrival date. - Guests will be be charged 1 night's stay and tax at the time the reservation is made. - 15 days prior to scheduled arrival the guest's credit card shall be charged for an additional 2 nights stay and tax which is non-refundable. Guest Cancellation: - Guest will forfeit the non-refundable deposit paid as of the date of the cancellation. Guest Substitution: - Guests may substitute names for reserved rooms without penalty. Early Departure Fee: - In the event of early departure, the guest will be charged for the remainder of their stay. Should the room nights be re-sold, the guest will be refunded for the resold room nights. For additional information on rates and policies, please visit: http://www.ietf.org/meeting/83/hotel.html 4. Companion Program If you are traveling with a friend or family member over 18 years of age you can register them for the IETF Companion Program for only USD 15.00 Benefits include: - A special welcome reception for companions from 1630-1730 on Sunday, 25 March - Ability to attend the official Welcome Reception from 1700-1900 on Sunday, 25 March - A distinctive meeting badge that grants access to the venue (not to be used to attend working sessions) - Participation in a separate companion email list if you choose to help communicate and make plans with other IETF Companions. You can register your companion at any time via the IETF website or onsite at the meeting. To join the 83 companions mailing list see: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/83companions Only 71 days until the Paris IETF! _______________________________________________ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net