From msk@cloudmark.com Wed Jun 1 21:53:39 2011 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 BBB2AE0659 for ; Wed, 1 Jun 2011 21:53:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.677 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.677 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.079, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZfzXTAk5gxa5 for ; Wed, 1 Jun 2011 21:53:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED15EE06A1 for ; Wed, 1 Jun 2011 21:53:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by malice.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.71]) with mapi; Wed, 1 Jun 2011 21:53:33 -0700 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "domainrep@ietf.org" Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2011 21:53:32 -0700 Thread-Topic: At long last, some drafts and a charter Thread-Index: Acwg4QX0DwprYYM3Rm6+pfIAyStlBQ== Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="_004_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F134C919335EXCHC2corpclo_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [domainrep] At long last, some drafts and a charter 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, 02 Jun 2011 04:53:39 -0000 --_004_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F134C919335EXCHC2corpclo_ Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F134C919335EXCHC2corpclo_" --_000_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F134C919335EXCHC2corpclo_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Greetings, Although there hasn't been much activity on this list in several months, th= e ideas have certainly not died. Back then, Nathaniel Borenstein posted a = vision about a flexible reputation system might look like, and I've managed= to convert his idea into a suite of drafts that lay out a general framewor= k, some IANA work, and then a couple of example applications that use the f= ramework. I've also included a mechanism for query and response using DNS = and HTTP, and left a blank one open as well for a UDP method in case there'= s resistance to doing a DNS-based application. I have a potential platform for doing both server-side and client-side samp= le implementations of such work, though it'll be a bit longer before they'r= e visible, and I'd like to use these drafts as a basis for doing so which i= s why it's important to get the community discussing this stuff once again. I've attached the last version of the draft charter for a working group to = work on a general reputation framework using these drafts as a basis, and r= equested a BoF in Quebec City based on the previous momentum and these draf= ts. I'm hoping the enthusiasm for the idea isn't as dead as the list has b= een. Please have a look at the drafts and this charter and provide commentary. = I'd love to see some momentum here in time for Quebec City and possibly oth= er related meetings before then. Thanks, -MSK --_000_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F134C919335EXCHC2corpclo_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Greetings,<= /o:p>

 

Alt= hough there hasn’t been much activity on this list in several months,= the ideas have certainly not died.  Back then, Nathaniel Borenstein p= osted a vision about a flexible reputation system might look like, and I= 217;ve managed to convert his idea into a suite of drafts that lay out a ge= neral framework, some IANA work, and then a couple of example applications = that use the framework.  I’ve also included a mechanism for quer= y and response using DNS and HTTP, and left a blank one open as well for a = UDP method in case there’s resistance to doing a DNS-based applicatio= n.

 

I have a potential platform for doing both server-side and client-side= sample implementations of such work, though it’ll be a bit longer be= fore they’re visible, and I’d like to use these drafts as a bas= is for doing so which is why it’s important to get the community disc= ussing this stuff once again.

 = ;

I’ve attached the last version of the= draft charter for a working group to work on a general reputation framewor= k using these drafts as a basis, and requested a BoF in Quebec City based o= n the previous momentum and these drafts.  I’m hoping the enthus= iasm for the idea isn’t as dead as the list has been.

<= p class=3DMsoNormal> 

Please have a= look at the drafts and this charter and provide commentary.  I’= d love to see some momentum here in time for Quebec City and possibly other= related meetings before then.

&nbs= p;

Thanks,

-MSK

= --_000_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F134C919335EXCHC2corpclo_-- --_004_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F134C919335EXCHC2corpclo_ Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="repute-charter" Content-Description: repute-charter Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="repute-charter"; size=3836; creation-date="Thu, 02 Jun 2011 04:53:30 GMT"; modification-date="Thu, 02 Jun 2011 04:51:55 GMT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 V29ya2luZyBHcm91cCBOYW1lOgoJUmVwdXRhdGlvbiBTZXJ2aWNlcyAoUkVQVVRFKQoKSUVURiBB cmVhOgoJQXBwbGljYXRpb25zIEFyZWEKCkNoYWlyKHMpOgoJVEJECgpBcHBsaWNhdGlvbnMgQXJl YSBEaXJlY3RvcihzKToKCVBldGUgUmVzbmljayA8cHJlc25pY2tAcXVhbGNvbW0uY29tPgoJUGV0 ZXIgU2FpbnQtQW5kcmUgPHN0cGV0ZXJAc3RwZXRlci5pbT4KCkFwcGxpY2F0aW9ucyBBcmVhIEFk dmlzb3I6CglUQkQKCk1haWxpbmcgTGlzdHM6CglHZW5lcmFsIERpc2N1c3Npb246IHJlcHV0ZUBp ZXRmLm9yZwoJVG8gU3Vic2NyaWJlOgkgICAgaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFpbG1hbi9s aXN0aW5mby9yZXB1dGUKCUFyY2hpdmU6CSAgICBodHRwOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL21haWwtYXJj aGl2ZS93ZWIvcmVwdXRlLwoKRGVzY3JpcHRpb24gb2YgV29ya2luZyBHcm91cDoKCVRoZXJlIGhh cyBiZWVuIG11Y2ggcmVjZW50IHdvcmsgaW4gdGhlIGFyZWEgb2YgYXV0aGVudGljYXRpb24KCW9m IGNvbnRlbnQuICBGb3IgZXhhbXBsZSwgdGhlIERLSU0gd29ya2luZyBncm91cCBwcm9kdWNlZCBh IHN0YW5kYXJkcwoJdHJhY2sgZG9jdW1lbnQgdGhhdCBwcm92aWRlcyBhIG1lY2hhbmlzbSB0byBh dHRhY2ggYSByZWxpYWJsZQoJZG9tYWluIG5hbWUgdG8gYSBtZXNzYWdlIGJ5IHdheSBvZiBhIGRv bWFpbi1sZXZlbCBkaWdpdGFsIHNpZ25hdHVyZS4KCUFsdGhvdWdoIHRoZSBkZWxpdmVyeSBvZiBh biBhdXRoZW50aWNhdGVkIGlkZW50aWZpZXIgaXMgYSBiaWcgc3RlcAoJdG93YXJkIHByZXZlbnRp b24gb2YgZnJhdWQsIGl0IGlzIG5vdCBpdHNlbGYgc3VmZmljaWVudDsgYW55Ym9keQoJY2FuIGNy ZWF0ZSBhbmQgYXR0YWNoIHN1Y2ggYW4gaWRlbnRpZmllciwgYnV0IGluIG9yZGVyIHRvIG1ha2Ug YQoJbWVhbmluZ2Z1bCBhc3Nlc3NtZW50IG9mIHRoZSB2YWx1ZSBvZiB0aGF0IGlkZW50aWZpZXIg LS0gYW5kIHRodXMsCglhIG1lYW5pbmdmdWwgY2hvaWNlIGFib3V0IHdoYXQgdG8gZG8gd2l0aCB0 aGUgY29udGVudCAtLSBtb3JlCglpbmZvcm1hdGlvbiBhYm91dCB0aGUgaWRlbnRpdHkgaXMgbmVl ZGVkLgoKCVRoZXJlIGlzIGN1cnJlbnRseSBvbmx5IG9uZSBzdGFuZGFyZCBtZWNoYW5pc20gZm9y IGRvaW5nIHNvLCBuYW1lbHkKCVZvdWNoLWJ5LVJlZmVyZW5jZSAoUkZDNTUxOCksIHdoaWNoIHBy b3ZpZGVzIGEgc2ltcGxlIEJvb2xlYW4KCXJlcHV0YXRpb24gcXVlcnkgYW5kIHJlc3BvbnNlIG1l Y2hhbmlzbSBpbiB0aGUgY2FzZSBvZiBlbWFpbC4KCglUaGVyZSBpcyB0aHVzIGFuIG9idmlvdXMg bmVlZCBmb3IgYSBnZW5lcmFsIG1lY2hhbmlzbSB0byBxdWVyeQoJc29tZSBzZXJ2aWNlIGZvciBh IHZhbHVlIGFzc29jaWF0ZWQgd2l0aCBhbiBpZGVudGlmaWVyIGluIG9yZGVyIHRvCgljb21wbGV0 ZSB0aGF0IGFzc2Vzc21lbnQuICBUaGlzIGlzIGNvbW1vbmx5IHJlZmVycmVkIHRvIGFzCgkicmVw dXRhdGlvbiIsIHdoZXJlaW4gYSBwcm92aWRlciBvZiByZXB1dGF0aW9uIGRhdGEgbWFrZXMgdGhv c2UgZGF0YQoJYXZhaWxhYmxlIHRvIGl0cyBjb25zdW1lcnMuICBBIHN0YW5kYXJkIHByb3RvY29s IHN1aXRlIGlzIG5lZWRlZCB0bwoJZGVmaW5lIHRoZSBtZWNoYW5pc20gZm9yIHRoZSBxdWVyeSBh bmQgZm9yIHRoZSByZXBseSwgYW5kIHRoZSBmb3JtYXQKCW9mIHRoZSBkYXRhLgoKCVRoaXMgd29y a2luZyBncm91cCB3aWxsIGFkZHJlc3MgdGhlIG5lZWRzIG9mIHRoZSBpbmR1c3RyeSBpbgoJdGhp cyByZWdhcmQgYnkgcHJvZHVjaW5nIGEgc2V0IG9mIGRvY3VtZW50cyBtZWFudCB0byBkZWZpbmUg YW5kCglpbGx1c3RyYXRlIHRoZSBwcm9ibGVtIGFuZCBwcm92aWRlIGEgc3RhbmRhcmRpemVkIHNv bHV0aW9uLiAgVHdvCgltZWNoYW5pc21zIGFyZSBwcm9wb3NlZCwgb25lIGxpZ2h0d2VpZ2h0ICh3 aGVyZWluIGEgcmVwdXRhdGlvbgoJaXMgZXhwcmVzc2VkIGluIGEgc2ltcGxlIG1hbm5lciBzdWNo IGFzIGFuIGludGVnZXIpIGFuZCBvbmUgbW9yZQoJaGVhdnl3ZWlnaHQgKGluIHdoaWNoIGEgcmVz cG9uc2UgY2FuIGNvbnRhaW4gbW9yZSBjb21wbGV4IGluZm9ybWF0aW9uCgl1c2VmdWwgdG8gYW4g YXNzZXNzb3IpLiAgVGhlIG1lY2hhbmlzbXMgd2lsbCBiZSBkZXNpZ25lZCB0byBiZQoJYXBwbGlj YXRpb24gaW5kZXBlbmRlbnQuCgoJVGhlIGdyb3VwIHdpbGwgYWxzbyBjb25zaWRlciwgYW5kIHBy b2R1Y2Ugc3BlY2lmaWNhdGlvbnMgZm9yLCB0aGUKCW1lYW5zIGZvciByZXBvcnRzIGFib3V0IGFu IGlkZW50aXR5IHRvIGJlIGZlZCB0byBhIHJlcHV0YXRpb24KCXNlcnZpY2UsIGZvciBzdWJzZXF1 ZW50IGFnZ3JlZ2F0aW9uIGFuZCByZXBvcnRpbmcgaW4gcmVzcG9uc2UgdG8KCWxhdGVyIHF1ZXJp ZXMuCgoJSXRlbXMgdGhhdCBhcmUgc3BlY2lmaWNhbGx5IG91dCBvZiBzY29wZSBmb3IgdGhpcyB3 b3JrOgoKCSogU3BlY2lmaWMgYWN0aW9ucyB0byBiZSB0YWtlbiBpbiByZXNwb25zZSB0byBhIHJl cHV0YXRpb24gcmVwbHkuCgkgIEl0IGlzIHVwIHRvIGFzc2Vzc29ycyAoaS5lLiwgdGhlIGNvbnN1 bWVycyBvZiByZXB1dGF0aW9uIGRhdGEpCgkgIHRvIGRldGVybWluZSB0aGlzLgoKCSogU2VsZWN0 aW9uIG9mIHdoYXQgZGF0YSBtaWdodCBiZSB2YWxpZCBhcyB0aGUgc3ViamVjdCBvZiBhCgkgIHJl cHV0YXRpb24gcXVlcnkuICBJdCBpcyB1cCB0byByZXB1dGF0aW9uIHNlcnZpY2UgcHJvdmlkZXJz IGFuZAoJICBhc3Nlc3NvcnMgdG8gc2VsZWN0IHdoaWNoIHF1YWxpdGllcyBvZiBhIGJvZHkgb2Yg ZGF0YSBtaWdodAoJICBiZSB1c2VmdWwgaW5wdXQgdG8gcmVwdXRhdGlvbiBldmFsdWF0aW9uLgoK CSogVGhlIG1lY2hhbmlzbSBvZiBjb2xsZWN0aW9uLCBjb2xsYXRpb24gYW5kIGRpc3RpbGxhdGlv biBvZgoJICBkYXRhIGFib3V0IGFuIGVudGl0eSB0byBjb21wdXRlIGl0cyByZXB1dGF0aW9uLiAg VGhpcyBpcwoJICBpbXBsZW1lbnRhdGlvbi1zcGVjaWZpYyBhbmQgbm90IG9mIGludGVyZXN0IHRv IHRoaXMgcHJvdG9jb2wuCgpHb2FscyBhbmQgTWlsZXN0b25lczoKCW1tbSB5eXl5OglJbmZvcm1h dGlvbmFsIGRvY3VtZW50LCBkZWZpbmluZyB0aGUgcHJvYmxlbSBzcGFjZQoJCQlhbmQgc29sdXRp b24gbW9kZWwsIHRvIHRoZSBJRVNHIGZvciBwdWJsaWNhdGlvbi4KCgltbW0geXl5eToJU3RhbmRh cmRzIHRyYWNrIGRvY3VtZW50LCBkZWZpbmluZyBhIG5ldyBzdHJ1Y3R1cmUKCQkJKGUuZy4sIGEg bWVkaWEgdHlwZSkgZm9yIHJlbGF5aW5nIHJlcHV0YXRpb24KCQkJaW5mb3JtYXRpb24sIHRvIHRo ZSBJRVNHIGZvciBwdWJsaWNhdGlvbi4KCgltbW0geXl5eToJSW5mb3JtYXRpb25hbCBkb2N1bWVu dCwgZGVmaW5pbmcgdGhlIHZvY2FidWxhcnkKCQkJZm9yIHByb3ZpZGluZyByZXB1dGF0aW9uIGlu IHRoZSBlbWFpbCBzcGhlcmUsIHRvIHRoZQoJCQlJRVNHIGZvciBwdWJsaWNhdGlvbi4KCgltbW0g eXl5eTogIAlTdGFuZGFyZHMgdHJhY2sgZG9jdW1lbnQsIGRlZmluaW5nIHRoZSBsaWdodHdlaWdo dAoJCQlxdWVyeSBtZWNoYW5pc20sIHRvIHRoZSBJRVNHIGZvciBwdWJsaWNhdGlvbi4KCgltbW0g eXl5eTogIAlTdGFuZGFyZHMgdHJhY2sgZG9jdW1lbnQsIGRlZmluaW5nIHRoZSBoZWF2eXdlaWdo dAoJCQlxdWVyeSBtZWNoYW5pc20sIHRvIHRoZSBJRVNHIGZvciBwdWJsaWNhdGlvbi4KCgltbW0g eXl5eTogIAlTdGFuZGFyZHMgdHJhY2sgZG9jdW1lbnQsIGRlZmluaW5nIG1lY2hhbmlzbXMKCQkJ Zm9yIHNlbmRpbmcgZGF0YSB0byByZXB1dGF0aW9uIHByb3ZpZGVycywgdG8gdGhlCgkJCUlFU0cg Zm9yIHB1YmxpY2F0aW9uLgo= --_004_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F134C919335EXCHC2corpclo_-- From johnl@iecc.com Wed Jun 1 22:27:44 2011 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 C3BFBE075C for ; Wed, 1 Jun 2011 22:27:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -109.306 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.306 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.893, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hvebEk6lIvgO for ; Wed, 1 Jun 2011 22:27:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [64.57.183.53]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CE13E0808 for ; Wed, 1 Jun 2011 22:27:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 36380 invoked from network); 2 Jun 2011 05:27:37 -0000 Received: from mail1.iecc.com (64.57.183.56) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 2 Jun 2011 05:27:37 -0000 Date: 2 Jun 2011 05:27:15 -0000 Message-ID: <20110602052715.22653.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] At long last, some drafts and a charter 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, 02 Jun 2011 05:27:44 -0000 >Please have a look at the drafts and this charter and provide >commentary. I'd love to see some momentum here in time for Quebec >City and possibly other related meetings before then. Hmmn. Incorporating by reference my comments from last time, I'm still trying to wrap my head around what this would be useful for. One initial question: all of the sample assertions are bad, e.g. IS-MALWARE or SENDS-SPAM. I'd think it'd be at least as useful for a credible third party to publish good or at least neutral assertions, e.g. IS-A-TRANSATION (for a message) or IS-LAW-ENFORCEMENT (for a sender.) R's, John From msk@cloudmark.com Wed Jun 1 22:37:12 2011 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 2B624E0910 for ; Wed, 1 Jun 2011 22:37:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.66 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.66 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.061, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UZfqeiIPTAgD for ; Wed, 1 Jun 2011 22:37:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC0C2E08EF for ; Wed, 1 Jun 2011 22:37:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by malice.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.71]) with mapi; Wed, 1 Jun 2011 22:37:11 -0700 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "domainrep@ietf.org" Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2011 22:37:10 -0700 Thread-Topic: [domainrep] At long last, some drafts and a charter Thread-Index: Acwg5cztEsHNRysaRXu4CrYUkS4ctgAAIAzA Message-ID: References: <20110602052715.22653.qmail@joyce.lan> In-Reply-To: <20110602052715.22653.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] At long last, some drafts and a charter 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, 02 Jun 2011 05:37:12 -0000 PiAtLS0tLU9yaWdpbmFsIE1lc3NhZ2UtLS0tLQ0KPiBGcm9tOiBKb2huIExldmluZSBbbWFpbHRv OmpvaG5sQGllY2MuY29tXQ0KPiBTZW50OiBXZWRuZXNkYXksIEp1bmUgMDEsIDIwMTEgMTA6Mjcg UE0NCj4gVG86IGRvbWFpbnJlcEBpZXRmLm9yZw0KPiBDYzogTXVycmF5IFMuIEt1Y2hlcmF3eQ0K PiBTdWJqZWN0OiBSZTogW2RvbWFpbnJlcF0gQXQgbG9uZyBsYXN0LCBzb21lIGRyYWZ0cyBhbmQg YSBjaGFydGVyDQo+IA0KPiBIbW1uLiAgSW5jb3Jwb3JhdGluZyBieSByZWZlcmVuY2UgbXkgY29t bWVudHMgZnJvbSBsYXN0IHRpbWUsIEknbSBzdGlsbA0KPiB0cnlpbmcgdG8gd3JhcCBteSBoZWFk IGFyb3VuZCB3aGF0IHRoaXMgd291bGQgYmUgdXNlZnVsIGZvci4NCg0KU2V2ZXJhbCBhcHBsaWNh dGlvbnMgY29tZSB0byBtaW5kLCBidXQgdGhlIG1vc3Qgb2J2aW91cyBvbmVzIGZyb20gbXkgcGVy c3BlY3RpdmUgaGF2ZSB0byBkbyB3aXRoIHRoZSBjb3JyZWxhdGlvbiBiZXR3ZWVuIHNvbWUgcHJv cGVydHkgb2YgYW4gb2JqZWN0IChhIFVSTCBmcm9tIGEgd2ViIHBhZ2UsIGFuIGlkZW50aXR5IGZy b20gYSBwaWVjZSBvZiBlbWFpbCwgd2hhdGV2ZXIpIGFuZCB0aGUgbGlrZWxpaG9vZCBpdCBpcyBh c3NvY2lhdGVkIHdpdGggc29tZXRoaW5nIGdvb2Qgb3IgYmFkIChzcGFtLCBtYWx3YXJlLCBsZWdp dCBiYW5rcykgYmFzZWQgb24gcGFzdCBvYnNlcnZlZCBkYXRhLiAgUGVyaGFwcyB0aGUgc2ltcGxl c3QgYW5kIG1vc3QgYXBwYXJlbnQgb2YgdGhlc2UgaXMgInRoaXMgc2VuZGVyIiAoZm9yIHNvbWUg dmFsdWUgb2YgInNlbmRlciIpIGlzIHR5cGljYWxseSBhc3NvY2lhdGVkIHdpdGggZ29vZCAob3Ig YmFkKSBtYWlsLiAgQnV0IGl0IGRvZXNuJ3QgaGF2ZSB0byBiZSBhIHNlbmRlcjsgaXQgY291bGQg YmUgYSBVUkwgb3IgcGFydCBvZiBvbmUgZnJvbSBpbnNpZGUgYSBtZXNzYWdlLCBvciBhbnl0aGlu ZywgYmVjYXVzZSB0aGUgZnJhbWV3b3JrIGlzIGV4dGVuc2libGUuDQoNCj4gT25lIGluaXRpYWwg cXVlc3Rpb246IGFsbCBvZiB0aGUgc2FtcGxlIGFzc2VydGlvbnMgYXJlIGJhZCwgZS5nLg0KPiBJ Uy1NQUxXQVJFIG9yIFNFTkRTLVNQQU0uICBJJ2QgdGhpbmsgaXQnZCBiZSBhdCBsZWFzdCBhcyB1 c2VmdWwgZm9yDQo+IGEgY3JlZGlibGUgdGhpcmQgcGFydHkgdG8gcHVibGlzaCBnb29kIG9yIGF0 IGxlYXN0IG5ldXRyYWwgYXNzZXJ0aW9ucywNCj4gZS5nLiBJUy1BLVRSQU5TQVRJT04gKGZvciBh IG1lc3NhZ2UpIG9yIElTLUxBVy1FTkZPUkNFTUVOVCAoZm9yIGENCj4gc2VuZGVyLikNCg0KVGhl IHByb3Bvc2VkIHN5c3RlbSBjZXJ0YWlubHkgYWxsb3dzIHBvc2l0aXZlIGFzc2VydGlvbnMuICBJ IGp1c3QgcGlja2VkIHNvbWUgY29tbW9uIG9uZXMgdGhhdCBhcmUgaW4gdXNlIHRvZGF5IHBhcmFs bGVsaW5nIHdoYXQgUkJMcyBkbyBpbiB0aGUgSVAgc3BhY2UuDQoNCllvdSBoYWQgc3VnZ2VzdGVk IHVzaW5nIHRoZSBOQUlDUyBjb2RlcywgZm9yIGV4YW1wbGUuICBJdCBzZWVtcyB0byBtZSBhIHZv Y2FidWxhcnkgYWJvdXQgZG9tYWluIG5hbWVzLCBwZXJoYXBzIHRoZSBpZGVudGl0eSBvbmUsIGNv dWxkIGluY2x1ZGUgdGhhdCBhcyBhbiBleHRlbnNpb24uDQoNCg== From nsb@guppylake.com Thu Jun 2 04:32:58 2011 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 ACA68E06E0 for ; Thu, 2 Jun 2011 04:32:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8j2kaJrKLnYZ for ; Thu, 2 Jun 2011 04:32:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from server1.netnutz.com (server1.netnutz.com [72.233.90.3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 468ADE066C for ; Thu, 2 Jun 2011 04:32:57 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=guppylake.com; h=Received:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:References:To:X-Mailer; b=BhKhd3b/12pdv30DIm4GUOt1Nzl9FGCVSF3CnDhnTdplL7rkRwZ6DM5NT9/rCmSEBf81+k0FejhmZsAnXrQZC3ruUoZIUGRqEGAnMdLwwSS8ypIfGXEjys5ANomFAqvK; Received: from c-68-42-65-200.hsd1.mi.comcast.net ([68.42.65.200] helo=[192.168.2.4]) by server1.netnutz.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QS691-0006jg-E2; Thu, 02 Jun 2011 07:32:55 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Nathaniel Borenstein In-Reply-To: <20110602052715.22653.qmail@joyce.lan> Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2011 07:32:48 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <23CCEB43-9709-40D7-AB9C-9701ABD46106@guppylake.com> References: <20110602052715.22653.qmail@joyce.lan> To: John Levine X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server1.netnutz.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - guppylake.com Cc: domainrep@ietf.org Subject: Re: [domainrep] At long last, some drafts and a charter 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, 02 Jun 2011 11:32:58 -0000 On Jun 2, 2011, at 1:27 AM, John Levine wrote: > One initial question: all of the sample assertions are bad, e.g. > IS-MALWARE or SENDS-SPAM. I'd think it'd be at least as useful for > a credible third party to publish good or at least neutral assertions, > e.g. IS-A-TRANSATION (for a message) or IS-LAW-ENFORCEMENT (for a = sender.) I'm not sure what, precisely, you mean by "bad" in this context. We all = know that "spam" is a slippery concept, and that different parties will = assess whether or not a message is spam differently. But that doesn't = make blacklists useless. All such assertions are meaningful only as = statements of the best judgment of the RATER. Thus, a reputon doesn't = assert that a sender or domain is absolutely a spammer. It states that = a certain rating authority believes it to be a spammer. And I think = this applies to some of your "neutral" assertions as well. A repressive = government and a human rights NGO might disagree strongly about whether = or not the government's secret police should be considered law = enforcement. -- Nathaniel From msk@cloudmark.com Thu Jun 2 07:38:00 2011 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 ACC4CE07D0 for ; Thu, 2 Jun 2011 07:38:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.642 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.642 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.044, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e9eCzE502A0a for ; Thu, 2 Jun 2011 07:37:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D5A3E06D6 for ; Thu, 2 Jun 2011 07:37:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by malice.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.71]) with mapi; Thu, 2 Jun 2011 07:37:58 -0700 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "domainrep@ietf.org" Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2011 07:37:56 -0700 Thread-Topic: At long last, some drafts and a charter Thread-Index: Acwg4QX0DwprYYM3Rm6+pfIAyStlBQAUQm7A Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: 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_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F134C91933AEXCHC2corpclo_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [domainrep] At long last, some drafts and a charter 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, 02 Jun 2011 14:38:00 -0000 --_000_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F134C91933AEXCHC2corpclo_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ah yes, the drafts. In all my excitement I forgot to post their various na= mes. They are: A Model for Reputation Interchange http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kucherawy-reputation-model/ A Media Type for Reputation Interchange http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kucherawy-reputation-media-type/ Reputation Data Interchange using the DNS http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kucherawy-reputation-query-dns/ Reputation Data Interchange using HTTP and XML http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kucherawy-reputation-query-http/ Reputation Data Interchange using UDP http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kucherawy-reputation-query-udp/ A Reputation Vocabulary for Email Identities http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kucherawy-reputation-vocab-identity/ A Reputation Vocabulary for Email Properties http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kucherawy-reputation-vocab-email/ The UDP one is mostly empty, intended as a placeholder in case the DNS one = gets too much negative feedback. It can be dropped if that turns out not t= o be the case. Ideally I'd like to have one more vocabulary definition for something that = is not email centric. I'll try to put one together someday soon if nobody = else beats me to it. From: domainrep-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:domainrep-bounces@ietf.org] On Beh= alf Of Murray S. Kucherawy Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 9:54 PM To: domainrep@ietf.org Subject: [domainrep] At long last, some drafts and a charter Greetings, Although there hasn't been much activity on this list in several months, th= e ideas have certainly not died. Back then, Nathaniel Borenstein posted a = vision about a flexible reputation system might look like, and I've managed= to convert his idea into a suite of drafts that lay out a general framewor= k, some IANA work, and then a couple of example applications that use the f= ramework. I've also included a mechanism for query and response using DNS = and HTTP, and left a blank one open as well for a UDP method in case there'= s resistance to doing a DNS-based application. I have a potential platform for doing both server-side and client-side samp= le implementations of such work, though it'll be a bit longer before they'r= e visible, and I'd like to use these drafts as a basis for doing so which i= s why it's important to get the community discussing this stuff once again. I've attached the last version of the draft charter for a working group to = work on a general reputation framework using these drafts as a basis, and r= equested a BoF in Quebec City based on the previous momentum and these draf= ts. I'm hoping the enthusiasm for the idea isn't as dead as the list has b= een. Please have a look at the drafts and this charter and provide commentary. = I'd love to see some momentum here in time for Quebec City and possibly oth= er related meetings before then. Thanks, -MSK --_000_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F134C91933AEXCHC2corpclo_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Ah yes, the drafts.  In all my excitement I forgot to po= st their various names.  They are:

 

A Model for Reputation Interchange

http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/dr= aft-kucherawy-reputation-model/

 

A Media Type for Reputation Interchange

http://datatracker.ietf.org/do= c/draft-kucherawy-reputation-media-type/

 

Reputation Data Interchange using the DNS

http://datatracker.= ietf.org/doc/draft-kucherawy-reputation-query-dns/

 

Reputation Data Interchange using HTTP and XML

http= ://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kucherawy-reputation-query-http/=

&n= bsp;

Reputation Data Interchange using= UDP

http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kucherawy-reputation-query-udp/=

 

A Reputation Vocabulary for = Email Identities

http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kucherawy-reputati= on-vocab-identity/

 

A Repu= tation Vocabulary for Email Properties

<= span style=3D'color:#1F497D'>http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft= -kucherawy-reputation-vocab-email/

 

The UDP one is mostly empty, intend= ed as a placeholder in case the DNS one gets too much negative feedback.&nb= sp; It can be dropped if that turns out not to be the case.

 <= /span>

Ideally I̵= 7;d like to have one more vocabulary definition for something that is not e= mail centric.  I’ll try to put one together someday soon if nobo= dy else beats me to it.

 

From: domainrep-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:domainrep-bounces@ie= tf.org] On Behalf Of Murray S. Kucherawy
Sent: Wednesday, = June 01, 2011 9:54 PM
To: domainrep@ietf.org
Subject: [= domainrep] At long last, some drafts and a charter

 

Gre= etings,

 

Although there hasn’t been much activity on this list in se= veral months, the ideas have certainly not died.  Back then, Nathaniel= Borenstein posted a vision about a flexible reputation system might look l= ike, and I’ve managed to convert his idea into a suite of drafts that= lay out a general framework, some IANA work, and then a couple of example = applications that use the framework.  I’ve also included a mecha= nism for query and response using DNS and HTTP, and left a blank one open a= s well for a UDP method in case there’s resistance to doing a DNS-bas= ed application.

 

I have a potential platform for doing both server-side an= d client-side sample implementations of such work, though it’ll be a = bit longer before they’re visible, and I’d like to use these dr= afts as a basis for doing so which is why it’s important to get the c= ommunity discussing this stuff once again.

 

I’ve attached the last v= ersion of the draft charter for a working group to work on a general reputa= tion framework using these drafts as a basis, and requested a BoF in Quebec= City based on the previous momentum and these drafts.  I’m hopi= ng the enthusiasm for the idea isn’t as dead as the list has been.

 

= Please have a look at the drafts and this charter and provide commentary.&n= bsp; I’d love to see some momentum here in time for Quebec City and p= ossibly other related meetings before then.

 

Thanks,

-MSK

= --_000_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F134C91933AEXCHC2corpclo_-- From johnl@iecc.com Thu Jun 2 07:50:42 2011 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 5F29EE0786 for ; Thu, 2 Jun 2011 07:50:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -109.338 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.338 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.861, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id B4eE1rCGmWcw for ; Thu, 2 Jun 2011 07:50:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [64.57.183.53]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D5D5E06C8 for ; Thu, 2 Jun 2011 07:50:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 43935 invoked from network); 2 Jun 2011 14:50:39 -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=ab9e.4de7a33f.k1106; i=johnl@submit.iecc.com; bh=H3e1Kr+pdXfRenk1JOsYjv2gFjwfppqTqLG0vK8cdJQ=; b=K4RYzmm1HL7NOiBCVxrco03uyW/Ji/wCKSf9sHiTJDNcBBDTRiVuXFYKHwL9nE7s/M8kNJnJKQKJ3laMUODqoupNFZtv8mZwEGLlOk0jt+7Bd2uGXHl5Y/CnRrrBHHa2VERz9DsqBn6ZVXFUsF82q5Y4GlOGyAUsTvUIwXcAfjA= VBR-Info: md=iecc.com; mc=all; mv=dwl.spamhaus.org Received: (ofmipd johnl@64.57.183.62) with (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 2 Jun 2011 14:50:17 -0000 Date: 2 Jun 2011 10:50:39 -0400 Message-ID: From: "John R. Levine" To: "Nathaniel Borenstein" In-Reply-To: <23CCEB43-9709-40D7-AB9C-9701ABD46106@guppylake.com> References: <20110602052715.22653.qmail@joyce.lan> <23CCEB43-9709-40D7-AB9C-9701ABD46106@guppylake.com> 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] At long last, some drafts and a charter 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, 02 Jun 2011 14:50:42 -0000 >> One initial question: all of the sample assertions are bad, e.g. >> IS-MALWARE or SENDS-SPAM. I'd think it'd be at least as useful for >> a credible third party to publish good or at least neutral assertions, >> e.g. IS-A-TRANSATION (for a message) or IS-LAW-ENFORCEMENT (for a sender.) > > I'm not sure what, precisely, you mean by "bad" in this context. Bad: Assertions that would make one less likely to accept mail, display a web page, or whatever. I realize that you can construct hypothetical cases of spam traps that only want phishes, but I hope that's not what we're standardizing. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly From vesely@tana.it Thu Jun 2 11:16:15 2011 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 B7EFCE084B for ; Thu, 2 Jun 2011 11:16:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.52 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.52 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.801, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MtI4-9u-G4ln for ; Thu, 2 Jun 2011 11:16:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1778E0835 for ; Thu, 2 Jun 2011 11:16:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=test; t=1307038571; bh=/VqCYxBZXJ53BxY6/dhpPUhRrDhrIoLjga6aV11sWzE=; l=1498; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=XbnhTXfdJQvTVTXrZOGuCYiy5wVzfNHcSGrC1/vAIwyxWLoRgzFVEVTh6CHzPg55L q0P0kbht67c7BM3IhI+4bAW0ygqzqIyrHxkd/cLO5zxDiTQuxwfm5SObsrmDNjtjmg mZNQ1rae9I5xOp+YEJNRP9xwZBM2KQxSXzm2MMD8= Received: from [172.25.197.158] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.158]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 515, TLS: TLS1.0,256bits,RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA; Thu, 02 Jun 2011 20:16:11 +0200 id 00000000005DC035.000000004DE7D36B.00003405 Message-ID: <4DE7D36B.7070506@tana.it> Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2011 20:16:11 +0200 From: Alessandro Vesely User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: domainrep@ietf.org References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [domainrep] At long last, some drafts and a charter 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, 02 Jun 2011 18:16:15 -0000 Hi Murray, On 02/Jun/11 06:53, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > Please have a look at the drafts and this charter and provide > commentary. I've only skimmed the first draft. There seems to be an ellipsis in the argument, as developed in the reputation-model's introduction about the paragraph saying The next step, which could usefully be undertaken only in the presence of such stronger identity mechanisms, is to establish a mechanism by which mutually trusted parties can exchange information about other parties. Such information is known as reputation information. That way, the text assumes the existence of "mutually trusted parties" after describing a universe of parties that are merely mutually identifiable. The transition from identifying to trusting is not clear, and may appear to be beyond the scope of the model, except that the text is also saying that it is at its core. IIRC, this is where discussion paused. Just to recall what the point was, let me mention we came here after abuse-reporting, wondering what would result from weighting received vs. reported messages of a given identity. Forwarding abuse reports and exchanging those "reputation" ratios seemed to be the building blocks for that collection, collation and distillation that we won't discuss... Or does the fact that the charter mentions a different mailing list imply that "domainrep" remains available for discussing items that are specifically out of scope for "repute"? From msk@cloudmark.com Thu Jun 2 11:46:02 2011 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 64196E086A for ; Thu, 2 Jun 2011 11:46:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.626 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.626 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.027, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YC8DVpFVvFKs for ; Thu, 2 Jun 2011 11:46:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A35C7E06D7 for ; Thu, 2 Jun 2011 11:46:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by malice.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.71]) with mapi; Thu, 2 Jun 2011 11:46:01 -0700 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "domainrep@ietf.org" Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2011 11:46:00 -0700 Thread-Topic: [domainrep] At long last, some drafts and a charter Thread-Index: AcwhUTZ9CvPReAGYQR+rM1TZZpex2wAACrCw Message-ID: References: <4DE7D36B.7070506@tana.it> In-Reply-To: <4DE7D36B.7070506@tana.it> 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] At long last, some drafts and a charter 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, 02 Jun 2011 18:46:02 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: domainrep-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:domainrep-bounces@ietf.org] On B= ehalf Of Alessandro Vesely > Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 11:16 AM > To: domainrep@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [domainrep] At long last, some drafts and a charter >=20 > I've only skimmed the first draft. There seems to be an ellipsis in > the argument, as developed in the reputation-model's introduction > about the paragraph saying >=20 > The next step, which could usefully be undertaken only in the > presence of such stronger identity mechanisms, is to establish a > mechanism by which mutually trusted parties can exchange information > about other parties. Such information is known as reputation > information. >=20 > That way, the text assumes the existence of "mutually trusted parties" > after describing a universe of parties that are merely mutually > identifiable. The transition from identifying to trusting is not > clear, and may appear to be beyond the scope of the model, except that > the text is also saying that it is at its core. It could be that the text needs improvement, but the point it's trying to m= ake is that once you have a property of a message (for example) that is use= ful to evaluate, now you need a way to ask questions and get answers about = the value of that property. In the case of email, the DKIM allows the addi= tion of an identifier to a message (in this case, a domain name) that can b= e verified rather than arbitrarily generated by the sender and blindly acce= pted by the receiver. It's something meaningful that can be evaluated. So= that's where trust in the identity comes in. The mutually trusted parties refer to the party that wishes to evaluate suc= h a thing, and the party that has an opinion to express about it. They nee= d to trust each other, especially the client in that relationship which wil= l presumably make a filtering decision based on what the server says. By w= ay of example, SSL secures a connection between two parties and possibly au= thenticates one or both of them, but makes no guarantee about the behavior = of either within the connection. That sort of establishment of trust is an= out-of-band matter. > IIRC, this is where discussion paused. Just to recall what the point > was, let me mention we came here after abuse-reporting, wondering what > would result from weighting received vs. reported messages of a given > identity. Forwarding abuse reports and exchanging those "reputation" > ratios seemed to be the building blocks for that collection, collation > and distillation that we won't discuss... Or does the fact that the > charter mentions a different mailing list imply that "domainrep" > remains available for discussing items that are specifically out of > scope for "repute"? I don't know the mechanics of the list name; there's been a generalization = of the purpose of this work beyond simply domain names since that name was = chosen, but I don't think it's guaranteed that the formation of a WG would = involve creation of a new list. We might just need to be careful not to ge= t tunnel vision. As for interchange of data among reputation providers, I believe we could a= ddress that if we feel that's something also in need of standardization and= interoperability, but so far I suspect that's going to be largely a propri= etary matter. I could be wrong, though. What I really want to avoid is codifying in an RFC the idea that one can on= ly seek or provide reputation services about specific identities, or that o= ne can only compute reputation based on specific properties of an object. = None of that belongs in a protocol specification, in my opinion. If a repu= tation provider is foolish about how it collects or reports data, then the = value of that service diminishes. Those sorts of subjective things need to= be out of scope. From vesely@tana.it Fri Jun 3 04:24:07 2011 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 10970E0759 for ; Fri, 3 Jun 2011 04:24:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.496 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.496 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.777, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9uj+S5KP95Og for ; Fri, 3 Jun 2011 04:24:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wmail.tana.it (mail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E85DDE0736 for ; Fri, 3 Jun 2011 04:24:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=test; t=1307100239; bh=KJQLRW2xZdVXDrF9PJyayul4R3dPqS1N0b0Afa8wuss=; l=4114; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=lu1fYzW+vrYgCjscKynznejuTLiLdhAqlLhZe8T/u8dyHurzcjpJC5mPocgJLSgD3 8+5iBduQ5J7c2APVVt57kBa2LZTZRm6AkHgWKjUiilYEcQBZOOeMrC4LBU6O0D3FYx u6GguddlQQ9BDzCzv8Gxl4vDlcdg03nPKieXU+Mw= Received: from [172.25.197.158] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.158]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 515, TLS: TLS1.0,256bits,RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA; Fri, 03 Jun 2011 13:23:59 +0200 id 00000000005DC039.000000004DE8C44F.0000528A Message-ID: <4DE8C44F.3060504@tana.it> Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2011 13:23:59 +0200 From: Alessandro Vesely User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: domainrep@ietf.org References: <4DE7D36B.7070506@tana.it> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [domainrep] At long last, some drafts and a charter 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, 03 Jun 2011 11:24:07 -0000 On 02/Jun/11 20:46, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: On Behalf Of Alessandro Vesely >> The transition from identifying to trusting is not clear, and may >> appear to be beyond the scope of the model, except that the text >> is also saying that it is at its core. > > It could be that the text needs improvement, but the point it's > trying to make is that once you have a property of a message (for > example) that is useful to evaluate, now you need a way to ask > questions and get answers about the value of that property. The first item mentioned in the representation is "the identity of the entity providing the reputation information". How this may limit the kinds of answers is not obvious. > In the case of email, the DKIM allows the addition of an identifier > to a message (in this case, a domain name) that can be verified > rather than arbitrarily generated by the sender and blindly > accepted by the receiver. It's something meaningful that can be > evaluated. So that's where trust in the identity comes in. Yes, but it assumes the client already trusts the information provider. How does /this/ come into being? > The mutually trusted parties refer to the party that wishes to > evaluate such a thing, and the party that has an opinion to express > about it. They need to trust each other, especially the client in > that relationship which will presumably make a filtering decision > based on what the server says. By way of example, SSL secures a > connection between two parties and possibly authenticates one or > both of them, but makes no guarantee about the behavior of either > within the connection. That sort of establishment of trust is an > out-of-band matter. Exactly. The question is, if clients already have an out-of-band mechanism whereby they can trust information providers, why don't they use such mechanism to evaluate message identities as well. (This is similar to the requirement to exchange keys over a secure channel, before public-key cryptography: if parties already have a secure channel, what do they need cryptography for?) Perhaps, we can assume that reputation providers will be limited to a few well-known actors, such as Spamhaus, national CERTs, and the like, while the identities to be evaluated vary widely and frequently. However, this answer doesn't scale. If I were a VBR provider I wouldn't know where to bang my head. Apparently, they can state something for brilliantly-white prominent identities only. How do I learn the reputation of a small Chinese shop? The vastness of the gray area seems to be calling for many many more reputation providers, possibly arranged in a suitable topology so that it's easier to determine which ones are more knowledgeable for the identity at hand. Even if these questions are not part of the protocol, they are part of the real problem. Maybe a reputation provider's identity is the preeminent candidate for (recursive) reputation queries. Maybe a discovery mechanism is necessary. > What I really want to avoid is codifying in an RFC the idea that > one can only seek or provide reputation services about specific > identities, or that one can only compute reputation based on > specific properties of an object. None of that belongs in a > protocol specification, in my opinion. If a reputation provider is > foolish about how it collects or reports data, then the value of > that service diminishes. Those sorts of subjective things need to > be out of scope. Still, we stick on "reputation". How is such kind of data different from, say, addresses? Why does it need a specific protocol? I agree that generalization is useful and maybe the RFC had better be at the abstraction level you propose, but working out from top to bottom the DKIM+domain+email "example" is useful too. That way we could provide a sample implementation that actually computes real data, however poorly collected, collated, and distilled. Otherwise, detaching abstraction from reality, we risk to talk nonsense, don't we? From msk@cloudmark.com Fri Jun 3 10:03:00 2011 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 60846E0784 for ; Fri, 3 Jun 2011 10:03:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.094 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.094 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.495, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LV4nIogEWSwV for ; Fri, 3 Jun 2011 10:02:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.36]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87907E067F for ; Fri, 3 Jun 2011 10:02:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by spite.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.72]) with mapi; Fri, 3 Jun 2011 10:02:55 -0700 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "domainrep@ietf.org" Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2011 10:02:54 -0700 Thread-Topic: [domainrep] At long last, some drafts and a charter Thread-Index: Acwh4MFDojy1J448QFuMc0DK2lascwALnXBg Message-ID: References: <4DE7D36B.7070506@tana.it> <4DE8C44F.3060504@tana.it> In-Reply-To: <4DE8C44F.3060504@tana.it> 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] At long last, some drafts and a charter 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, 03 Jun 2011 17:03:00 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: domainrep-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:domainrep-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Alessandro Vesely > Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 4:24 AM > To: domainrep@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [domainrep] At long last, some drafts and a charter >=20 > > In the case of email, the DKIM allows the addition of an identifier > > to a message (in this case, a domain name) that can be verified > > rather than arbitrarily generated by the sender and blindly > > accepted by the receiver. It's something meaningful that can be > > evaluated. So that's where trust in the identity comes in. >=20 > Yes, but it assumes the client already trusts the information > provider. How does /this/ come into being? Does that need to be specified in the protocol? How do you decide which RBLs to use (and trust), for example? > Exactly. The question is, if clients already have an out-of-band > mechanism whereby they can trust information providers, why don't they > use such mechanism to evaluate message identities as well. To re-use the RBL analogy, you're saying: If I know which RBL providers I c= an trust, why can't I just figure out which IP addresses I want to talk to = on my own? > Perhaps, we can assume that reputation providers will be limited to a > few well-known actors, such as Spamhaus, national CERTs, and the like, > while the identities to be evaluated vary widely and frequently. > However, this answer doesn't scale. If I were a VBR provider I > wouldn't know where to bang my head. Apparently, they can state > something for brilliantly-white prominent identities only. How do I > learn the reputation of a small Chinese shop? The vastness of the > gray area seems to be calling for many many more reputation providers, > possibly arranged in a suitable topology so that it's easier to > determine which ones are more knowledgeable for the identity at hand. I don't see where in the documents that these limitations you're describing= exist. Assertions don't need to be purely positive; they can be anything.= Some of the proposals that have been floated include quality such as "sen= ds-spam" or "sends-good-mail" which are definitely "good" and "bad" type th= ings, but one could also assert "is-a-bank", "is-in-italy", etc. VBR could= also do these, but it's limited to Boolean expressions and nothing more de= tailed. > Even if these questions are not part of the protocol, they are part of > the real problem. Maybe a reputation provider's identity is the > preeminent candidate for (recursive) reputation queries. Maybe a > discovery mechanism is necessary. We don't have a discovery mechanism for RBLs now. Do we need one? > I agree that generalization is useful and maybe the RFC had better be > at the abstraction level you propose, but working out from top to > bottom the DKIM+domain+email "example" is useful too. That way we > could provide a sample implementation that actually computes real > data, however poorly collected, collated, and distilled. Otherwise, > detaching abstraction from reality, we risk to talk nonsense, don't we? That is exactly the approach this work is taking as one of its examples. From R.E.Sonneveld@sonnection.nl Fri Jun 3 14:48:34 2011 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 5AC22E07ED for ; Fri, 3 Jun 2011 14:48:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.804 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.804 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.205, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j8YqAxq7CBBU for ; Fri, 3 Jun 2011 14:48:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx20.mailtransaction.com (mx20.mailtransaction.com [78.46.16.213]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19B3DE07D4 for ; Fri, 3 Jun 2011 14:48:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from process-dkim-sign-daemon.helium.mailtransaction.com by helium.mailtransaction.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Exchange Server 7u4-18.01 64bit (built Jul 15 2010)) id <0LM800P00HWV9I00@helium.mailtransaction.com>; Fri, 03 Jun 2011 23:48:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from lion.sonnection.nl (lion.sonnection.nl [80.127.135.138]) by helium.mailtransaction.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Exchange Server 7u4-18.01 64bit (built Jul 15 2010)) with ESMTP id <0LM800KBVHWVGM00@helium.mailtransaction.com>; Fri, 03 Jun 2011 23:48:31 +0200 (CEST) MIME-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII; format=flowed Received: from a80-127-135-139.adsl.xs4all.nl (a80-127-135-139.adsl.xs4all.nl [80.127.135.139]) by lion.sonnection.nl (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7.3-11.01 32bit (built Sep 1 2009)) with ESMTPA id <0LM800M23HWUIT00@lion.sonnection.nl> for domainrep@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Jun 2011 23:48:31 +0200 (CEST) Message-id: <4DE9573C.5050806@sonnection.nl> Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2011 23:50:52 +0200 From: "Rolf E. Sonneveld" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.10 To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" References: <4DE7D36B.7070506@tana.it> <4DE8C44F.3060504@tana.it> In-reply-to: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=sonnection.nl; s=2009; t=1307137711; bh=iZw/whgDHp6BeRn8GiY3tWmWOK2/X4MMyhOb2bfB6dw=; h=MIME-version:Content-transfer-encoding:Content-type:Message-id: Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-reply-to; b=Aj1cLBsrnEtfCCl49W6IMLcP3DHhbLXZq8C7djwuUpdTD0vvTEt2r/zG1ld25F4h4 dUpJ18L8dMNmIK+abGl9HP6w8dknwP69xITauuDJ3G13qEVjbLafK05JqWWN4BnxRx 5vRLrMtZphFZnQBVMAbVDIAxcnBTymdCTCQPJ9GU= X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.1.3 helium.mailtransaction.com 0LM800P00HWV9I00 Cc: "domainrep@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [domainrep] At long last, some drafts and a charter 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, 03 Jun 2011 21:48:34 -0000 On 6/3/11 7:02 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: domainrep-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:domainrep-bounces@ietf.org] On >> Behalf Of Alessandro Vesely >> Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 4:24 AM >> To: domainrep@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [domainrep] At long last, some drafts and a charter >> >>> In the case of email, the DKIM allows the addition of an identifier >>> to a message (in this case, a domain name) that can be verified >>> rather than arbitrarily generated by the sender and blindly >>> accepted by the receiver. It's something meaningful that can be >>> evaluated. So that's where trust in the identity comes in. >> Yes, but it assumes the client already trusts the information >> provider. How does /this/ come into being? > Does that need to be specified in the protocol? It would be nice if the protocol would support it, but in fact this is asking for a meta-reputation model, in which the reputation providers themselves also get a reputation. See also below. > How do you decide which RBLs to use (and trust), for example? > >> Exactly. The question is, if clients already have an out-of-band >> mechanism whereby they can trust information providers, why don't they >> use such mechanism to evaluate message identities as well. > To re-use the RBL analogy, you're saying: If I know which RBL providers I can trust, why can't I just figure out which IP addresses I want to talk to on my own? > >> Perhaps, we can assume that reputation providers will be limited to a >> few well-known actors, such as Spamhaus, national CERTs, and the like, >> while the identities to be evaluated vary widely and frequently. >> However, this answer doesn't scale. If I were a VBR provider I >> wouldn't know where to bang my head. Apparently, they can state >> something for brilliantly-white prominent identities only. How do I >> learn the reputation of a small Chinese shop? The vastness of the >> gray area seems to be calling for many many more reputation providers, >> possibly arranged in a suitable topology so that it's easier to >> determine which ones are more knowledgeable for the identity at hand. > I don't see where in the documents that these limitations you're describing exist. Assertions don't need to be purely positive; they can be anything. Some of the proposals that have been floated include quality such as "sends-spam" or "sends-good-mail" which are definitely "good" and "bad" type things, but one could also assert "is-a-bank", "is-in-italy", etc. VBR could also do these, but it's limited to Boolean expressions and nothing more detailed. > >> Even if these questions are not part of the protocol, they are part of >> the real problem. Maybe a reputation provider's identity is the >> preeminent candidate for (recursive) reputation queries. Maybe a >> discovery mechanism is necessary. > We don't have a discovery mechanism for RBLs now. Do we need one? A discovery mechanism is a separate issue from the reputation or expert area of reputation providers. To follow the analogy of RBL's: over the years I regularly have to search through some recent mailing list archives to find out what people's opinion is on the quality of various RBL's/DNSBL's is. For DNSBL's http://www.sdsc.edu/~jeff/spam/cbc.html provides useful information about hits, but it doesn't provide information on the real quality of these lists. It appears that over time this type of lists have their own history: the quality of a DNSBL today is different from it's quality tomorrow and also different from that of yesterday. Likewise, with a repuation system, a meta-reputation system certainly would have its value, but it will not be easy to make it successful. And I'm not sure it would have to fit into this framework. On the other hand, if the reputon is the smallest unit of reputation, a meta-reputation system would have to be built using these reputons as well... /rolf From msk@cloudmark.com Fri Jun 3 15:41:13 2011 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 B1AF8E079E for ; Fri, 3 Jun 2011 15:41:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.557 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.557 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.958, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eq5iW8R+G-6Y for ; Fri, 3 Jun 2011 15:41:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B0B9E0772 for ; Fri, 3 Jun 2011 15:41:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by malice.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.71]) with mapi; Fri, 3 Jun 2011 15:41:12 -0700 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "domainrep@ietf.org" Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2011 15:41:11 -0700 Thread-Topic: [domainrep] At long last, some drafts and a charter Thread-Index: AcwiN/9nmY3uJ2atRnqbMgnrvsueaQABynJQ Message-ID: References: <4DE7D36B.7070506@tana.it> <4DE8C44F.3060504@tana.it> <4DE9573C.5050806@sonnection.nl> In-Reply-To: <4DE9573C.5050806@sonnection.nl> 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] At long last, some drafts and a charter 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, 03 Jun 2011 22:41:13 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: Rolf E. Sonneveld [mailto:R.E.Sonneveld@sonnection.nl] > Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 2:51 PM > To: Murray S. Kucherawy > Cc: domainrep@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [domainrep] At long last, some drafts and a charter >=20 > A discovery mechanism is a separate issue from the reputation or expert > area of reputation providers. >=20 > To follow the analogy of RBL's: over the years I regularly have to > search through some recent mailing list archives to find out what > people's opinion is on the quality of various RBL's/DNSBL's is. For > DNSBL's http://www.sdsc.edu/~jeff/spam/cbc.html provides useful > information about hits, but it doesn't provide information on the real > quality of these lists. It appears that over time this type of lists > have their own history: the quality of a DNSBL today is different from > it's quality tomorrow and also different from that of yesterday. >=20 > Likewise, with a repuation system, a meta-reputation system certainly > would have its value, but it will not be easy to make it successful. And > I'm not sure it would have to fit into this framework. On the other > hand, if the reputon is the smallest unit of reputation, a > meta-reputation system would have to be built using these reputons as > well... Yep, and you certainly could have a vocabulary that discusses the reputatio= ns of reputation servers, and that would probably be a useful application. = But I don't think the base protocol should specify, and certainly should n= ot require, such a thing. From vesely@tana.it Sat Jun 4 08:56:06 2011 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 6FF1CE06A8 for ; Sat, 4 Jun 2011 08:56:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.473 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.473 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.754, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dgAvpr5NcwWK for ; Sat, 4 Jun 2011 08:56:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87C14E06D3 for ; Sat, 4 Jun 2011 08:42:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=test; t=1307194758; bh=CTxEFuEdRQdMKJHxxAXKTLo/I0qAcej0qj8FiRELeno=; l=1797; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=XTQZYEKg7Z1Z+HB47HeByW/6kxm7es7hjSrxb78c/U82DLqfRs9EcEc8xtcupTv0v 49Fo8L2dGtVsYirL+HJpEGTMI1NLPr+V/1UgS5n7mIrl1jHxP2YUp+ta3syVYeJQgQ SRvbA5KeoVifR3DTqgUo82s2xKJUdiXuMDUA47Zg= Received: from [172.25.197.158] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.158]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 515, TLS: TLS1.0,256bits,RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA; Sat, 04 Jun 2011 15:39:18 +0200 id 00000000005DC039.000000004DEA3586.00006704 Message-ID: <4DEA3585.50205@tana.it> Date: Sat, 04 Jun 2011 15:39:17 +0200 From: Alessandro Vesely User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: domainrep@ietf.org References: <4DE7D36B.7070506@tana.it> <4DE8C44F.3060504@tana.it> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [domainrep] At long last, some drafts and a charter 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: Sat, 04 Jun 2011 15:56:06 -0000 On 03/Jun/11 19:02, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: On Behalf Of Alessandro Vesely >> Even if these questions are not part of the protocol, they are part of >> the real problem. Maybe a reputation provider's identity is the >> preeminent candidate for (recursive) reputation queries. Maybe a >> discovery mechanism is necessary. > > We don't have a discovery mechanism for RBLs now. Do we need one? It wouldn't hurt. But then a few RBLs can be enough to work with. We already know how they work. How about The Spamhaus Whitelist or DNSWL.org? I'll be grateful if someone reports some news about how they are doing. I may be wrong, but I have the impression that positive assertion are more difficult to do. The number of potential message streams is many times the IPv4 address space. The comparison with RBLs holds no further. For some kinds of assertions, one has to consider abuse-reports and investigate a domain's reaction to receiving them. How about assertions such as reacts-to-abuse-reports, has-personal-ids? >> I agree that generalization is useful and maybe the RFC had better be >> at the abstraction level you propose, but working out from top to >> bottom the DKIM+domain+email "example" is useful too. That way we >> could provide a sample implementation that actually computes real >> data, however poorly collected, collated, and distilled. Otherwise, >> detaching abstraction from reality, we risk to talk nonsense, don't we? > > That is exactly the approach this work is taking as one of its examples. I'm happy with this statement of yours. It'll be a very interesting experience. That way we'll gain enough insight to craft a protocol that will work. I look forward to participating to such experiment. From msk@cloudmark.com Sat Jun 4 23:12:56 2011 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 D1FE821F84A0 for ; Sat, 4 Jun 2011 23:12:56 -0700 (PDT) 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=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iH5Q6hv0BJJI for ; Sat, 4 Jun 2011 23:12:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.36]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5569321F849C for ; Sat, 4 Jun 2011 23:12:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by spite.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.72]) with mapi; Sat, 4 Jun 2011 23:12:52 -0700 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "domainrep@ietf.org" Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2011 23:12:52 -0700 Thread-Topic: [domainrep] At long last, some drafts and a charter Thread-Index: Acwiz+3ValLi8vkxQ/6uvnqhlfRKkAAdShYQ Message-ID: References: <4DE7D36B.7070506@tana.it> <4DE8C44F.3060504@tana.it> <4DEA3585.50205@tana.it> In-Reply-To: <4DEA3585.50205@tana.it> 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] At long last, some drafts and a charter 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: Sun, 05 Jun 2011 06:12:57 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: domainrep-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:domainrep-bounces@ietf.org] On B= ehalf Of Alessandro Vesely > Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2011 6:39 AM > To: domainrep@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [domainrep] At long last, some drafts and a charter >=20 > > We don't have a discovery mechanism for RBLs now. Do we need one? >=20 > It wouldn't hurt. But then a few RBLs can be enough to work with. > We already know how they work. How about The Spamhaus Whitelist or > DNSWL.org? I'll be grateful if someone reports some news about how > they are doing. I'm still confused. How would we write this into a protocol? If you're talking about a reputation vocabulary for describing reputation s= ervices, the current framework does support such a thing. Perhaps you coul= d construct and propose one. :-) But that's not the same thing as a discovery mechanism, which means a syste= m with no state can make a query someplace and find out where reputation se= rvices can be found. RBLs have been plenty successful without such a mecha= nism so far. > I may be wrong, but I have the impression that positive assertion are > more difficult to do. The number of potential message streams is many > times the IPv4 address space. The comparison with RBLs holds no > further. Why would a positive assertion be any more difficult to do than a negative = assertion? Both involve collecting history about something and then doing = some analysis work to form an opinion. I don't think the protocol needs to= change, though in either the positive or negative case the vocabulary must= be carefully chosen. > For some kinds of assertions, one has to consider > abuse-reports and investigate a domain's reaction to receiving them. > How about assertions such as reacts-to-abuse-reports, has-personal-ids? Sure, the current framework supports stuff like this as well. Perhaps you'= d like to try writing a vocabulary draft for this kind of thing? -MSK From vesely@tana.it Sun Jun 5 04:07:55 2011 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 EAA1C21F84DF for ; Sun, 5 Jun 2011 04:07:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.719 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.719 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jEHirIFhJviM for ; Sun, 5 Jun 2011 04:07:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1AF921F84D9 for ; Sun, 5 Jun 2011 04:07:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=test; t=1307272072; bh=aptYDWCy+zkX/MTw3FgoMU23Q36cEMCinlonzzsm/P0=; l=3259; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=ObIov3ON1md2LqoHLgDDz2ELR9XVLypg+QaQZ6N4j/S7mno4DtKVgucOYi/vi78fB Rwg08ujKpHr6hcby9E1eeHWp38scoXri9zm8jHHjPVzhDRNuOSlXG8gkFeqbh/crMg TijVf5SdKZZAzRJZ1dI/eZvyToINi+OUxfMw/GSQ= Received: from [172.25.197.158] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.158]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 515, TLS: TLS1.0,256bits,RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA; Sun, 05 Jun 2011 13:07:52 +0200 id 00000000005DC03F.000000004DEB6388.00002D7B Message-ID: <4DEB6388.3010404@tana.it> Date: Sun, 05 Jun 2011 13:07:52 +0200 From: Alessandro Vesely User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: domainrep@ietf.org References: <4DE7D36B.7070506@tana.it> <4DE8C44F.3060504@tana.it> <4DEA3585.50205@tana.it> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [domainrep] At long last, some drafts and a charter 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: Sun, 05 Jun 2011 11:07:56 -0000 On 05/Jun/11 08:12, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >>> >>> We don't have a discovery mechanism for RBLs now. Do we need one? >> >> It wouldn't hurt. But then a few RBLs can be enough to work with. >> We already know how they work. How about The Spamhaus Whitelist or >> DNSWL.org? I'll be grateful if someone reports some news about how >> they are doing. > > I'm still confused. How would we write this into a protocol? We may not write it at all. > If you're talking about a reputation vocabulary for describing > reputation services, the current framework does support such a > thing. Perhaps you could construct and propose one. :-) Yes, if I had experience with it I would. I'm just saying that we don't know. You and Nathaniel have much more email experience than I, thus your guesses are much better educated than mines, but we are still guessing. After we'll have been using the experimental example, even if we build it using hacks that we'd never dare to write in an RFC, we may be able to adjust our guesses and fine-tune the protocol. Isn't that the plan you have in mind, more or less? But implementing such an example should be important enough to compare on the charter. > But that's not the same thing as a discovery mechanism, which means > a system with no state can make a query someplace and find out > where reputation services can be found. RBLs have been plenty > successful without such a mechanism so far. Discovery is one such guess, based on the huge number of reputation providers that would be required for manually inspecting each domain's practices --see below. > Why would a positive assertion be any more difficult to do than a > negative assertion? Both involve collecting history about > something and then doing some analysis work to form an opinion. IME, there are many more black lists than white ones, and while some BLs are used to make final decisions, e.g. rejecting a message, WLs only contribute to a message's score. (I recall discussing software changes needed for whitelisting just some months ago, and they're not yet implemented in the particular MTA I use.) I conclude that the difficulty gap must be relevant. > I don't think the protocol needs to change, though in either the > positive or negative case the vocabulary must be carefully chosen. You may well be right... >> For some kinds of assertions, one has to consider abuse-reports >> and investigate a domain's reaction to receiving them. How about >> assertions such as reacts-to-abuse-reports, has-personal-ids? > > Sure, the current framework supports stuff like this as well. > Perhaps you'd like to try writing a vocabulary draft for this kind > of thing? They are two other guesses. I have a rough idea on how to evaluate the first one, hinged on banning users from sending as a reaction to abuse reports. No idea for the second one, except manually trying to get an account at the relevant domain --see above. Even assuming such assertions would be undoubtedly useful, they are useless if they cannot be computed and retrieved. Thus, I would not write them in an RFC, at this stage, because useless vocabulary entries would diminish the overall value of the protocol. From johnl@iecc.com Sun Jun 5 07:41:59 2011 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 425D721F8504 for ; Sun, 5 Jun 2011 07:41:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -108.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-108.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BynKTQEXXRQO for ; Sun, 5 Jun 2011 07:41:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [64.57.183.53]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EE7D21F8502 for ; Sun, 5 Jun 2011 07:41:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 47139 invoked from network); 5 Jun 2011 14:41:56 -0000 Received: from mail1.iecc.com (64.57.183.56) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 5 Jun 2011 14:41:56 -0000 Date: 5 Jun 2011 14:41:34 -0000 Message-ID: <20110605144134.72990.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] At long last, some drafts and a charter 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: Sun, 05 Jun 2011 14:41:59 -0000 >Why would a positive assertion be any more difficult to do than a >negative assertion? Both involve collecting history about something and >then doing some analysis work to form an opinion. I don't think the >protocol needs to change, though in either the positive or negative case >the vocabulary must be carefully chosen. A significant hole I see is assertions that are not inherently good nor bad but have a value beyond than yes and no. I suspect that people would be happier with a ZIP-CODE field with a five digit value rather than 100,000 assertions like IS-ZIP-90210. I am not sure about the relative utility of assertions with controlled value ranges (postal codes, states, NAICS codes) and assertions without (mailing address.) R's, John From R.E.Sonneveld@sonnection.nl Thu Jun 9 00:51:31 2011 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 A4E6921F8521 for ; Thu, 9 Jun 2011 00:51:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8RCg4hhrUsZa for ; Thu, 9 Jun 2011 00:51:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx20.mailtransaction.com (mx20.mailtransaction.com [78.46.16.213]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E35A21F84F6 for ; Thu, 9 Jun 2011 00:51:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from process-dkim-sign-daemon.helium.mailtransaction.com by helium.mailtransaction.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Exchange Server 7u4-18.01 64bit (built Jul 15 2010)) id <0LMI00L00J5P3800@helium.mailtransaction.com>; Thu, 09 Jun 2011 09:51:25 +0200 (CEST) Received: from lion.sonnection.nl (lion.sonnection.nl [80.127.135.138]) by helium.mailtransaction.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Exchange Server 7u4-18.01 64bit (built Jul 15 2010)) with ESMTP id <0LMI00B1EJ5PHK00@helium.mailtransaction.com>; Thu, 09 Jun 2011 09:51:25 +0200 (CEST) MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_8FFIyBRo42ycvt9PP32EvA)" Received: from a80-127-135-139.adsl.xs4all.nl (a80-127-135-139.adsl.xs4all.nl [80.127.135.139]) by lion.sonnection.nl (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7.3-11.01 32bit (built Sep 1 2009)) with ESMTPA id <0LMI0083OJ5O4I00@lion.sonnection.nl> for domainrep@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Jun 2011 09:51:24 +0200 (CEST) Message-id: <4DF07C0C.8090804@sonnection.nl> Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2011 09:53:48 +0200 From: "Rolf E. Sonneveld" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.10 To: "domainrep@ietf.org" References: In-reply-to: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=sonnection.nl; s=2009; t=1307605885; bh=G/9BW0/hpaGlXHTFcEEI0j2PdFFaBEQ41Flv7hJy2qc=; h=MIME-version:Content-type:Message-id:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject: References:In-reply-to; b=BdCizyBLGM7Db+ecAyQ3zoqtJhndmYfnjSMHbNr01WnhIGe5b5FiIwZYUulQSgGu6 Q5jgL1e7082XZriEUrYaH238Ue662wXTTGEj6pjVI+bTrp+UPoDmTZYIzdVVe01mZh WzRne+VML0dWqfGF7dIKthxM9cybzgV/u+5Ypm6k= X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.1.3 helium.mailtransaction.com 0LMI00L00J5P3800 Subject: Re: [domainrep] At long last, some drafts and a charter 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, 09 Jun 2011 07:51:31 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_8FFIyBRo42ycvt9PP32EvA) Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT On 6/2/11 6:53 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > Greetings, > > Although there hasn't been much activity on this list in several > months, the ideas have certainly not died. Back then, Nathaniel > Borenstein posted a vision about a flexible reputation system might > look like, and I've managed to convert his idea into a suite of drafts > that lay out a general framework, some IANA work, and then a couple of > example applications that use the framework. I've also included a > mechanism for query and response using DNS and HTTP, and left a blank > one open as well for a UDP method in case there's resistance to doing > a DNS-based application. > > I have a potential platform for doing both server-side and client-side > sample implementations of such work, though it'll be a bit longer > before they're visible, and I'd like to use these drafts as a basis > for doing so which is why it's important to get the community > discussing this stuff once again. > > I've attached the last version of the draft charter for a working > group to work on a general reputation framework using these drafts as > a basis, and requested a BoF in Quebec City based on the previous > momentum and these drafts. I'm hoping the enthusiasm for the idea > isn't as dead as the list has been. > > Please have a look at the drafts and this charter and provide > commentary. I'd love to see some momentum here in time for Quebec > City and possibly other related meetings before then. > although I will not be able to attend Quebec City, except via jabber, I very much welcome the creation of a working group for reputation! I'd be glad to help edit one or more of the documents and participate in experiments that can aid in the development of the protocols and specifications. /rolf --Boundary_(ID_8FFIyBRo42ycvt9PP32EvA) Content-type: text/html; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT On 6/2/11 6:53 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:

Greetings,

 

Although there hasn’t been much activity on this list in several months, the ideas have certainly not died.  Back then, Nathaniel Borenstein posted a vision about a flexible reputation system might look like, and I’ve managed to convert his idea into a suite of drafts that lay out a general framework, some IANA work, and then a couple of example applications that use the framework.  I’ve also included a mechanism for query and response using DNS and HTTP, and left a blank one open as well for a UDP method in case there’s resistance to doing a DNS-based application.

 

I have a potential platform for doing both server-side and client-side sample implementations of such work, though it’ll be a bit longer before they’re visible, and I’d like to use these drafts as a basis for doing so which is why it’s important to get the community discussing this stuff once again.

 

I’ve attached the last version of the draft charter for a working group to work on a general reputation framework using these drafts as a basis, and requested a BoF in Quebec City based on the previous momentum and these drafts.  I’m hoping the enthusiasm for the idea isn’t as dead as the list has been.

 

Please have a look at the drafts and this charter and provide commentary.  I’d love to see some momentum here in time for Quebec City and possibly other related meetings before then.


although I will not be able to attend Quebec City, except via jabber, I very much welcome the creation of a working group for reputation! I'd be glad to help edit one or more of the documents and participate in experiments that can aid in the development of the protocols and specifications.

/rolf

--Boundary_(ID_8FFIyBRo42ycvt9PP32EvA)-- From dfs@roaringpenguin.com Mon Jun 13 07:07:19 2011 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 B6A259E8013 for ; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 07:07:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zceFA75J7oS7 for ; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 07:07:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from colo3.roaringpenguin.com (www.ipv6.roaringpenguin.com [IPv6:2607:f748:1200:fb:70:38:112:54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5AC79E8029 for ; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 07:07:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vanadium.roaringpenguin.com (vanadium.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.10.23]) by colo3.roaringpenguin.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5+lenny1) with ESMTP id p5DE7HDN018543 for ; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 10:07:17 -0400 Received: from hydrogen.roaringpenguin.com (hydrogen.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.10.1]) by vanadium.roaringpenguin.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5+lenny1) with ESMTP id p5DE7Gt8020246 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 10:07:17 -0400 Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 10:07:15 -0400 From: "David F. Skoll" To: domainrep@ietf.org Message-ID: <20110613100715.49619bae@hydrogen.roaringpenguin.com> Organization: Roaring Penguin Software Inc. X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.6 (GTK+ 2.20.1; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=roaringpenguin.com; h=date :from:to:subject:message-id:mime-version:content-type: content-transfer-encoding; s=beta; bh=jMPlt+37LdT6tC52ctQ0lP5UMJ E=; b=rJ5fEhw6zukL8K0Q9xm0alFZPUP3khKxFRSMmvaiGA4BGSCPwiCuGv7R13 UPmx2ZI9TzAXWH5Y3d83cM5En2IRZynTD8Fgk/kDJ9Cf4xJKgy9OPtwUUsyhkfVz k1H1YUiqyTttckPX3uilTSEwpWiXa+NdNl3SkX2biXVGH50ag= X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 192.168.7.18 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.72 on 192.168.10.23 X-CanIt-Geo: No geolocation information available for 192.168.10.23 X-CanItPRO-Stream: outgoing (inherits from default) X-CanIt-Archive-Cluster: SQVyZJxqklY5buiWXYCN4T/BjiM X-CanIt-Archived-As: base/20110613 / 01ETq7ho5 Subject: [domainrep] New to the reputation list 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, 13 Jun 2011 14:07:19 -0000 Hello, A colleague pointed me to this list, which has some interesting info on it. We have had a reputation-collection system up and running for over a year now and wrote an Internet draft detailing the reputation-collection protocol. Please see http://www.mimedefang.org/reputation for more info. Our system operates well; we collect thousands of reputation events per second on a single commodity Linux box with very low load. Our system is much more low-level and limited than the drafts mentioned on the list, but it does have the virtue of being working code. :) Naturally, if there's a process of standardizing reputation collection and dissemination, I'd like to be involved. We would prefer to use a standard system than continue our own development independently from the rest of the Internet community. Just some observations on the drafts I've read so far: I think HTTP/XML for reputation reporting is a non-starter. It's far too verbose, cpu-intensive and bandwidth-intensive. You need to think about a system that can collect tens to hundreds of thousands of reputation events per second. (HTTP/XML for reputation dissemination might work, though.) Echoing a comment from John Levine, you need to collect both "good" and "bad" events for a reputation system to be useful. I think there should be some discussion of how to *use* reputation data. Given that a system's reputation can be multidimensional (there are several orthogonal reputation measurements), it's not always clear what to do with the reputation data. It's probably not possible to dictate how to use the reputation data, but there should be some recommendations. Regards, David. From msk@cloudmark.com Mon Jun 13 09:28:01 2011 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 B581621F8535 for ; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 09:28:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.474 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.474 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.125, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QKkpfSjldTp6 for ; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 09:28:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED50921F8533 for ; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 09:28:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by malice.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.71]) with mapi; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 09:27:58 -0700 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "domainrep@ietf.org" Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 09:27:58 -0700 Thread-Topic: [domainrep] New to the reputation list Thread-Index: Acwp0zm5uxQsNaG5QjCEbQWKD1KehQAEqWLg Message-ID: References: <20110613100715.49619bae@hydrogen.roaringpenguin.com> In-Reply-To: <20110613100715.49619bae@hydrogen.roaringpenguin.com> 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] New to the reputation list 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, 13 Jun 2011 16:28:02 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: domainrep-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:domainrep-bounces@ietf.org] On B= ehalf Of David F. Skoll > Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 7:07 AM > To: domainrep@ietf.org > Subject: [domainrep] New to the reputation list >=20 > Hello, >=20 > A colleague pointed me to this list, which has some interesting info on > it. Welcome! > We have had a reputation-collection system up and running for over > a year now and wrote an Internet draft detailing the reputation- collecti= on > protocol. Please see http://www.mimedefang.org/reputation for more > info. >=20 > Just some observations on the drafts I've read so far: >=20 > I think HTTP/XML for reputation reporting is a non-starter. It's far > too verbose, cpu-intensive and bandwidth-intensive. You need to think > about a system that can collect tens to hundreds of thousands of > reputation events per second. (HTTP/XML for reputation dissemination > might work, though.) I think that's the goal. The protocols that have been proposed so far most= ly deal with a client asking a server "What is the reputation of X?", not s= o much the exchange of the events that comprise the ultimate answer to that= question. It could be though that that's something this group could (and = should) tackle. What you have at the above URL could be a starting point. = (It's expired; you might want to post an update.) > Echoing a comment from John Levine, you need to collect both "good" and > "bad" events for a reputation system to be useful. I don't remember anything in the current drafts that constrains the system = to making only "good" assertions. Certainly some of the examples like SEND= S-SPAM aren't "good". Or did you have something else in mind? There was also some hallway track chatter at MAAWG that suggested being abl= e to express a reputation between -1 and 1, rather than 0 and 1. > I think there should be some discussion of how to *use* reputation data. > Given that a system's reputation can be multidimensional (there are sever= al > orthogonal reputation measurements), it's not always clear what to do > with the reputation data. It's probably not possible to dictate how to > use the reputation data, but there should be some recommendations. A BCP, once we have enough field experience, seems entirely appropriate to = me. We could add that to the charter. -MSK From stpeter@stpeter.im Mon Jun 13 09:30:53 2011 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 16D2121F8568 for ; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 09:30:53 -0700 (PDT) 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=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id piIg1BlJrBBV for ; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 09:30:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AB4D21F8539 for ; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 09:30:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dhcp-64-101-72-207.cisco.com (dhcp-64-101-72-207.cisco.com [64.101.72.207]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 39D4940066; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 10:31:08 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <4DF63B3A.2090906@stpeter.im> Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 10:30:50 -0600 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" References: <20110613100715.49619bae@hydrogen.roaringpenguin.com> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 OpenPGP: url=http://www.saint-andre.com/me/stpeter.asc Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="------------ms020504000008000709010902" Cc: "domainrep@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [domainrep] New to the reputation list 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, 13 Jun 2011 16:30:53 -0000 This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format. --------------ms020504000008000709010902 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 6/13/11 10:27 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > There was also some hallway track chatter at MAAWG that suggested > being able to express a reputation between -1 and 1, rather than 0 > and 1. FWIW, that's how I've always thought of it -- an entity that is new to the network starts out at zero, and depending on its behavior it will be modded up or down. Peter --=20 Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ --------------ms020504000008000709010902 Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIITzjCC BjQwggQcoAMCAQICASMwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQELBQAwfTELMAkGA1UEBhMCSUwxFjAUBgNVBAoT DVN0YXJ0Q29tIEx0ZC4xKzApBgNVBAsTIlNlY3VyZSBEaWdpdGFsIENlcnRpZmljYXRlIFNp Z25pbmcxKTAnBgNVBAMTIFN0YXJ0Q29tIENlcnRpZmljYXRpb24gQXV0aG9yaXR5MB4XDTA3 MTAyNDIxMDMzM1oXDTE3MTAyNDIxMDMzM1owgYwxCzAJBgNVBAYTAklMMRYwFAYDVQQKEw1T dGFydENvbSBMdGQuMSswKQYDVQQLEyJTZWN1cmUgRGlnaXRhbCBDZXJ0aWZpY2F0ZSBTaWdu aW5nMTgwNgYDVQQDEy9TdGFydENvbSBDbGFzcyAzIFByaW1hcnkgSW50ZXJtZWRpYXRlIENs aWVudCBDQTCCASIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADggEPADCCAQoCggEBALmjSW4SPiDKlAinvVeL ZOVfItiuP1aRHL530E7QUc9icCwL33+PH+Js1HAh8CgWFl34sOxx1FJyS/C4VLPRsqDfP72j tzCVUAL0DAxZ7wgzQvFz7x61jGxfhYhqYb1+PPOLkYBbkRIrPMg3dLEdKmXIYJYXDH+mB/V/ jLo73/Kb7h/rNoNg/oHHSv5Jolyvp5IY2btfcTBfW/telEFj5rDTX2juTvZ3Qhf3XQX5ca3Q 7A10zrUV/cWJOJ7F5RltbEIaboZmX5JBUb3FhUiAdBotehAX6DbDOuYoJtVxmGof6GuVGcPo 98K4TJf8FHo+UA9EOVDp/W7fCqKT4sXk/XkCAwEAAaOCAa0wggGpMA8GA1UdEwEB/wQFMAMB Af8wDgYDVR0PAQH/BAQDAgEGMB0GA1UdDgQWBBR7iZySlyShhEcCy3T8LvSs3DLl8zAfBgNV HSMEGDAWgBROC+8apEBbpRdphzDKNGhD0EGu8jBmBggrBgEFBQcBAQRaMFgwJwYIKwYBBQUH MAGGG2h0dHA6Ly9vY3NwLnN0YXJ0c3NsLmNvbS9jYTAtBggrBgEFBQcwAoYhaHR0cDovL3d3 dy5zdGFydHNzbC5jb20vc2ZzY2EuY3J0MFsGA1UdHwRUMFIwJ6AloCOGIWh0dHA6Ly93d3cu c3RhcnRzc2wuY29tL3Nmc2NhLmNybDAnoCWgI4YhaHR0cDovL2NybC5zdGFydHNzbC5jb20v c2ZzY2EuY3JsMIGABgNVHSAEeTB3MHUGCysGAQQBgbU3AQIBMGYwLgYIKwYBBQUHAgEWImh0 dHA6Ly93d3cuc3RhcnRzc2wuY29tL3BvbGljeS5wZGYwNAYIKwYBBQUHAgEWKGh0dHA6Ly93 d3cuc3RhcnRzc2wuY29tL2ludGVybWVkaWF0ZS5wZGYwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQELBQADggIBAGpd SbdLFMhirxK37V4gE00+uW74UdAXtDgQI3AsRZWtaRtKHgAxFBSteqz4kDkeAjH/1b+K8tQR 6cxSI2nho7qOaPW/UpzOfSS/MeKK/9vfM2lfs+uItXH7LWtvS9wD1erfH1a+BXHCrCp4LA1l fADDhRIiGTSS3i0Zu5xV3INNRHrCCCl6patltQ8RZTqzDMri7ombgIxjN51Zo7xV77EZcThV 0GA8iIN+7T53uHhUJpjfLIztHs/69OclRvHux9hCflfOm7GY5Sc4nqjfES+5XPArGGWiQSEk ez37QfXqsxO3oCHK4b3DFZysG4uyOuC/WL80ab3muQ3tgwjBhq0D3JZN5kvu5gSuNZPa1WrV hEgXkd6C7s5stqB6/htVpshG08jRz9DEutGM9oKQ1ncTivbfPNx7pILoHWvvT7N5i/puVoNu bPUmLXh/2wA6wzAzuuoONiIL14Xpw6jLSnqpaLWElo2yTIFZ/CU/nCvvpW1Dj1457P3Ci9bD 0RPkWSR+CuucpgxrEmaw4UOLxflzuYYaq1RJwygOO5K0s2bAWOcXpgteyUOnQ3d/EjJAWRri 2v0ubiq+4H3KUOMlbznlPAY/1T8YyyJPM88+Ueahe/AW1zoUwZayNcTnuM7cq6yBV8Wr3GOI LFXhtT0UVuJLChPMJKVKVsa7qNorlLkMMIIGxzCCBa+gAwIBAgICAIswDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEF BQAwgYwxCzAJBgNVBAYTAklMMRYwFAYDVQQKEw1TdGFydENvbSBMdGQuMSswKQYDVQQLEyJT ZWN1cmUgRGlnaXRhbCBDZXJ0aWZpY2F0ZSBTaWduaW5nMTgwNgYDVQQDEy9TdGFydENvbSBD bGFzcyAzIFByaW1hcnkgSW50ZXJtZWRpYXRlIENsaWVudCBDQTAeFw0xMDEwMTQwMTM2MzRa Fw0xMjEwMTQxMjAxMDdaMIHAMSAwHgYDVQQNExcyNzQ1ODEtOU5YMDRxeExEYjBvNDY5VDEL MAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxETAPBgNVBAgTCENvbG9yYWRvMQ8wDQYDVQQHEwZEZW52ZXIxLDAqBgNV BAsTI1N0YXJ0Q29tIFRydXN0ZWQgQ2VydGlmaWNhdGUgTWVtYmVyMRowGAYDVQQDExFQZXRl ciBTYWludC1BbmRyZTEhMB8GCSqGSIb3DQEJARYSc3RwZXRlckBzdHBldGVyLmltMIIBIjAN BgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAuERvnrkpQTx9wbJfgxbNKEYvt0IilecZRUM6 wrbCzIUPCocuYhaAJcQoqIyHaKybPQ7f+DIGIAolAa3dHnNdlsXP2smTft/ZNpj10PIG5bil NAqLUYwmLJaEaqY7BMW8423U3blW43/luLJk/Pq4OsWcw7AK3LeVh1U/HOgqhin26N3h72X1 nbLEpZFrgcp8egmWtXLCbLBDMqUK3j6wjLldni79muzYEVqU0A5GqSeb8Wc4kIx8VI5yL24J KzinG2iVRP5ZDEbOZETzBXJabUsV56XSxqPG9DK6ke+ybCiL/wKV1HFqdtFB1y25lfvHgOP2 gyEApBKEDNjgLmKyyQIDAQABo4IC+zCCAvcwCQYDVR0TBAIwADALBgNVHQ8EBAMCBLAwHQYD VR0lBBYwFAYIKwYBBQUHAwIGCCsGAQUFBwMEMB0GA1UdDgQWBBS2EW2iNB+g0EibKJLBdv8I eLovVDAfBgNVHSMEGDAWgBR7iZySlyShhEcCy3T8LvSs3DLl8zAdBgNVHREEFjAUgRJzdHBl dGVyQHN0cGV0ZXIuaW0wggFCBgNVHSAEggE5MIIBNTCCATEGCysGAQQBgbU3AQICMIIBIDAu BggrBgEFBQcCARYiaHR0cDovL3d3dy5zdGFydHNzbC5jb20vcG9saWN5LnBkZjA0BggrBgEF BQcCARYoaHR0cDovL3d3dy5zdGFydHNzbC5jb20vaW50ZXJtZWRpYXRlLnBkZjCBtwYIKwYB BQUHAgIwgaowFBYNU3RhcnRDb20gTHRkLjADAgEBGoGRTGltaXRlZCBMaWFiaWxpdHksIHNl ZSBzZWN0aW9uICpMZWdhbCBMaW1pdGF0aW9ucyogb2YgdGhlIFN0YXJ0Q29tIENlcnRpZmlj YXRpb24gQXV0aG9yaXR5IFBvbGljeSBhdmFpbGFibGUgYXQgaHR0cDovL3d3dy5zdGFydHNz bC5jb20vcG9saWN5LnBkZjBjBgNVHR8EXDBaMCugKaAnhiVodHRwOi8vd3d3LnN0YXJ0c3Ns LmNvbS9jcnR1My1jcmwuY3JsMCugKaAnhiVodHRwOi8vY3JsLnN0YXJ0c3NsLmNvbS9jcnR1 My1jcmwuY3JsMIGOBggrBgEFBQcBAQSBgTB/MDkGCCsGAQUFBzABhi1odHRwOi8vb2NzcC5z dGFydHNzbC5jb20vc3ViL2NsYXNzMy9jbGllbnQvY2EwQgYIKwYBBQUHMAKGNmh0dHA6Ly93 d3cuc3RhcnRzc2wuY29tL2NlcnRzL3N1Yi5jbGFzczMuY2xpZW50LmNhLmNydDAjBgNVHRIE HDAahhhodHRwOi8vd3d3LnN0YXJ0c3NsLmNvbS8wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQADggEBADVtbXJG tKAr55xc/OUM546gXUybI72Bank0w739Mv+9BBNtq9rMEvCnLmSKhBi76c1mdXh6zXs8RQDo 6nR/aPabE3llF2T4z80smi9jfnl3y9dpu9TcgDoqDLZ7a2lBlW656XAAQzHjvLp2MC7/mxlg PYH2axa+q40mAYM20GbNsAEGbWQT1IqIh0BcLLsgbaMJHbyG/57zd9JLyMX3Vry1L1fJRQr3 GeLxMV5RtxN+mBgxrwFz/cOc09COiFExlsHgekpB5O43gqsAU16MXypyoSt4MrSfKTMHIGx6 2RF/M6vqUlvhi28gk2ZUvQ/+OX5+gjcZyooEzAAn4RuOKNswggbHMIIFr6ADAgECAgIAizAN BgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFADCBjDELMAkGA1UEBhMCSUwxFjAUBgNVBAoTDVN0YXJ0Q29tIEx0ZC4x KzApBgNVBAsTIlNlY3VyZSBEaWdpdGFsIENlcnRpZmljYXRlIFNpZ25pbmcxODA2BgNVBAMT L1N0YXJ0Q29tIENsYXNzIDMgUHJpbWFyeSBJbnRlcm1lZGlhdGUgQ2xpZW50IENBMB4XDTEw MTAxNDAxMzYzNFoXDTEyMTAxNDEyMDEwN1owgcAxIDAeBgNVBA0TFzI3NDU4MS05TlgwNHF4 TERiMG80NjlUMQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzERMA8GA1UECBMIQ29sb3JhZG8xDzANBgNVBAcTBkRl bnZlcjEsMCoGA1UECxMjU3RhcnRDb20gVHJ1c3RlZCBDZXJ0aWZpY2F0ZSBNZW1iZXIxGjAY BgNVBAMTEVBldGVyIFNhaW50LUFuZHJlMSEwHwYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFhJzdHBldGVyQHN0cGV0 ZXIuaW0wggEiMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4IBDwAwggEKAoIBAQC4RG+euSlBPH3Bsl+DFs0o Ri+3QiKV5xlFQzrCtsLMhQ8Khy5iFoAlxCiojIdorJs9Dt/4MgYgCiUBrd0ec12Wxc/ayZN+ 39k2mPXQ8gbluKU0CotRjCYsloRqpjsExbzjbdTduVbjf+W4smT8+rg6xZzDsArct5WHVT8c 6CqGKfbo3eHvZfWdssSlkWuBynx6CZa1csJssEMypQrePrCMuV2eLv2a7NgRWpTQDkapJ5vx ZziQjHxUjnIvbgkrOKcbaJVE/lkMRs5kRPMFclptSxXnpdLGo8b0MrqR77JsKIv/ApXUcWp2 0UHXLbmV+8eA4/aDIQCkEoQM2OAuYrLJAgMBAAGjggL7MIIC9zAJBgNVHRMEAjAAMAsGA1Ud DwQEAwIEsDAdBgNVHSUEFjAUBggrBgEFBQcDAgYIKwYBBQUHAwQwHQYDVR0OBBYEFLYRbaI0 H6DQSJsoksF2/wh4ui9UMB8GA1UdIwQYMBaAFHuJnJKXJKGERwLLdPwu9KzcMuXzMB0GA1Ud EQQWMBSBEnN0cGV0ZXJAc3RwZXRlci5pbTCCAUIGA1UdIASCATkwggE1MIIBMQYLKwYBBAGB tTcBAgIwggEgMC4GCCsGAQUFBwIBFiJodHRwOi8vd3d3LnN0YXJ0c3NsLmNvbS9wb2xpY3ku cGRmMDQGCCsGAQUFBwIBFihodHRwOi8vd3d3LnN0YXJ0c3NsLmNvbS9pbnRlcm1lZGlhdGUu cGRmMIG3BggrBgEFBQcCAjCBqjAUFg1TdGFydENvbSBMdGQuMAMCAQEagZFMaW1pdGVkIExp YWJpbGl0eSwgc2VlIHNlY3Rpb24gKkxlZ2FsIExpbWl0YXRpb25zKiBvZiB0aGUgU3RhcnRD b20gQ2VydGlmaWNhdGlvbiBBdXRob3JpdHkgUG9saWN5IGF2YWlsYWJsZSBhdCBodHRwOi8v d3d3LnN0YXJ0c3NsLmNvbS9wb2xpY3kucGRmMGMGA1UdHwRcMFowK6ApoCeGJWh0dHA6Ly93 d3cuc3RhcnRzc2wuY29tL2NydHUzLWNybC5jcmwwK6ApoCeGJWh0dHA6Ly9jcmwuc3RhcnRz c2wuY29tL2NydHUzLWNybC5jcmwwgY4GCCsGAQUFBwEBBIGBMH8wOQYIKwYBBQUHMAGGLWh0 dHA6Ly9vY3NwLnN0YXJ0c3NsLmNvbS9zdWIvY2xhc3MzL2NsaWVudC9jYTBCBggrBgEFBQcw AoY2aHR0cDovL3d3dy5zdGFydHNzbC5jb20vY2VydHMvc3ViLmNsYXNzMy5jbGllbnQuY2Eu Y3J0MCMGA1UdEgQcMBqGGGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuc3RhcnRzc2wuY29tLzANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUF AAOCAQEANW1tcka0oCvnnFz85QznjqBdTJsjvYFqeTTDvf0y/70EE22r2swS8KcuZIqEGLvp zWZ1eHrNezxFAOjqdH9o9psTeWUXZPjPzSyaL2N+eXfL12m71NyAOioMtntraUGVbrnpcABD MeO8unYwLv+bGWA9gfZrFr6rjSYBgzbQZs2wAQZtZBPUioiHQFwsuyBtowkdvIb/nvN30kvI xfdWvLUvV8lFCvcZ4vExXlG3E36YGDGvAXP9w5zT0I6IUTGWweB6SkHk7jeCqwBTXoxfKnKh K3gytJ8pMwcgbHrZEX8zq+pSW+GLbyCTZlS9D/45fn6CNxnKigTMACfhG44o2zGCA80wggPJ AgEBMIGTMIGMMQswCQYDVQQGEwJJTDEWMBQGA1UEChMNU3RhcnRDb20gTHRkLjErMCkGA1UE CxMiU2VjdXJlIERpZ2l0YWwgQ2VydGlmaWNhdGUgU2lnbmluZzE4MDYGA1UEAxMvU3RhcnRD b20gQ2xhc3MgMyBQcmltYXJ5IEludGVybWVkaWF0ZSBDbGllbnQgQ0ECAgCLMAkGBSsOAwIa BQCgggIOMBgGCSqGSIb3DQEJAzELBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHAYJKoZIhvcNAQkFMQ8XDTExMDYx MzE2MzA1MFowIwYJKoZIhvcNAQkEMRYEFC4b7abA1jee4GpWfyIx19Dn8K9jMF8GCSqGSIb3 DQEJDzFSMFAwCwYJYIZIAWUDBAECMAoGCCqGSIb3DQMHMA4GCCqGSIb3DQMCAgIAgDANBggq hkiG9w0DAgIBQDAHBgUrDgMCBzANBggqhkiG9w0DAgIBKDCBpAYJKwYBBAGCNxAEMYGWMIGT MIGMMQswCQYDVQQGEwJJTDEWMBQGA1UEChMNU3RhcnRDb20gTHRkLjErMCkGA1UECxMiU2Vj dXJlIERpZ2l0YWwgQ2VydGlmaWNhdGUgU2lnbmluZzE4MDYGA1UEAxMvU3RhcnRDb20gQ2xh c3MgMyBQcmltYXJ5IEludGVybWVkaWF0ZSBDbGllbnQgQ0ECAgCLMIGmBgsqhkiG9w0BCRAC CzGBlqCBkzCBjDELMAkGA1UEBhMCSUwxFjAUBgNVBAoTDVN0YXJ0Q29tIEx0ZC4xKzApBgNV BAsTIlNlY3VyZSBEaWdpdGFsIENlcnRpZmljYXRlIFNpZ25pbmcxODA2BgNVBAMTL1N0YXJ0 Q29tIENsYXNzIDMgUHJpbWFyeSBJbnRlcm1lZGlhdGUgQ2xpZW50IENBAgIAizANBgkqhkiG 9w0BAQEFAASCAQCAuhiapVPRhDIooFCDEPt5yhxhtat5u8E1h7Q0hYXiXS8afzbVGBjb3P8i js05L0Epi5n0m/kfvpVgbKVHSMbIsH7Z0pdDLPc8ZmSBUb7NONVcuYhXAyXF4B2npQq1TwqM O5jRlTvsEn6NYcC9RXgxoFVQpghSn52P56raXebgQLo+c2npMuXvzqzmTK6J8J1cbs5EEbIY ygCpEp06Xf9DhCBrCeg1UO5DQsOPCxGZ05XMY3Yj7fwRGvLnxUNH0ahS+c1pat1vqUCm1JGq BrH4qHyaqLI3Wzc29iiQ2uy0LMSyUxcDNuOxaa9x7z9aXgDSfQW7EvyQn6DWk6f45sJhAAAA AAAA --------------ms020504000008000709010902-- From msk@cloudmark.com Mon Jun 13 09:32:42 2011 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 954D321F85AA for ; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 09:32:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.400, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id G0nMGsj2DXku for ; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 09:32:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.36]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 091A221F859B for ; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 09:32:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by spite.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.72]) with mapi; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 09:32:37 -0700 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "domainrep@ietf.org" Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 09:32:37 -0700 Thread-Topic: [domainrep] New to the reputation list Thread-Index: Acwp50ZMxRZAL4uaTDa+nzqnL+wnTAAABqvg Message-ID: References: <20110613100715.49619bae@hydrogen.roaringpenguin.com> <4DF63B3A.2090906@stpeter.im> In-Reply-To: <4DF63B3A.2090906@stpeter.im> 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] New to the reputation list 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, 13 Jun 2011 16:32:42 -0000 PiAtLS0tLU9yaWdpbmFsIE1lc3NhZ2UtLS0tLQ0KPiBGcm9tOiBQZXRlciBTYWludC1BbmRyZSBb bWFpbHRvOnN0cGV0ZXJAc3RwZXRlci5pbV0NCj4gU2VudDogTW9uZGF5LCBKdW5lIDEzLCAyMDEx IDk6MzEgQU0NCj4gVG86IE11cnJheSBTLiBLdWNoZXJhd3kNCj4gQ2M6IGRvbWFpbnJlcEBpZXRm Lm9yZw0KPiBTdWJqZWN0OiBSZTogW2RvbWFpbnJlcF0gTmV3IHRvIHRoZSByZXB1dGF0aW9uIGxp c3QNCj4gDQo+IEZXSVcsIHRoYXQncyBob3cgSSd2ZSBhbHdheXMgdGhvdWdodCBvZiBpdCAtLSBh biBlbnRpdHkgdGhhdCBpcyBuZXcgdG8NCj4gdGhlIG5ldHdvcmsgc3RhcnRzIG91dCBhdCB6ZXJv LCBhbmQgZGVwZW5kaW5nIG9uIGl0cyBiZWhhdmlvciBpdCB3aWxsIGJlDQo+IG1vZGRlZCB1cCBv ciBkb3duLg0KDQpDb3VsZCBiZSwgYnV0IGl0IGRlcGVuZHMgb24gdGhlIGFzc2VydGlvbi4gIEZv ciBleGFtcGxlLCBJIGNhbid0IHRoaW5rIG9mIHdoYXQgYSBuZWdhdGl2ZSBudW1iZXIgZm9yIFNF TkRTLVNQQU0gd291bGQgYmUuICAoRWF0cyBzcGFtLCBwZXJoYXBzPykNCg0KTWF5YmUgdGhhdCBq dXN0IG1lYW5zIHdlIHN0YW5kYXJkaXplIG9uIC0xIHRvIDEsIGFuZCBzcGVjaWZ5IHRoYXQgYXNz ZXJ0aW9ucyBoYXZlIHRvIGJlIGNyYWZ0ZWQgYWNjb3JkaW5nbHkuDQo= From stpeter@stpeter.im Mon Jun 13 09:36:18 2011 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 442C421F85D9 for ; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 09:36:18 -0700 (PDT) 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=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nLMP+CDIRIph for ; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 09:36:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5131F21F85D4 for ; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 09:36:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dhcp-64-101-72-207.cisco.com (dhcp-64-101-72-207.cisco.com [64.101.72.207]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C00DF40066; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 10:36:33 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <4DF63C7F.9030700@stpeter.im> Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 10:36:15 -0600 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" References: <20110613100715.49619bae@hydrogen.roaringpenguin.com> <4DF63B3A.2090906@stpeter.im> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 OpenPGP: url=http://www.saint-andre.com/me/stpeter.asc Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="------------ms080803060208000800030601" Cc: "domainrep@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [domainrep] New to the reputation list 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, 13 Jun 2011 16:36:18 -0000 This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format. --------------ms080803060208000800030601 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 6/13/11 10:32 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> -----Original Message----- From: Peter Saint-Andre >> [mailto:stpeter@stpeter.im] Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 9:31 AM To: >> Murray S. Kucherawy Cc: domainrep@ietf.org Subject: Re: [domainrep] >> New to the reputation list >>=20 >> FWIW, that's how I've always thought of it -- an entity that is new >> to the network starts out at zero, and depending on its behavior it >> will be modded up or down. >=20 > Could be, but it depends on the assertion. For example, I can't > think of what a negative number for SENDS-SPAM would be. (Eats spam, > perhaps?) >=20 > Maybe that just means we standardize on -1 to 1, and specify that > assertions have to be crafted accordingly. I tend to think of things in terms like "reputation as a sender of email". If I send messages that are useful, I get modded up (like Slashdot "+1 insightful" or whatever), whereas if I send messages that are annoying I get modded down. However, "good" or "bad" don't need to be subjective judgements, they could be things like "uses DKIM" or "signs messages with a cert or key" etc. Just my gram of silver, mind you... Peter --=20 Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ --------------ms080803060208000800030601 Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIITzjCC BjQwggQcoAMCAQICASMwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQELBQAwfTELMAkGA1UEBhMCSUwxFjAUBgNVBAoT DVN0YXJ0Q29tIEx0ZC4xKzApBgNVBAsTIlNlY3VyZSBEaWdpdGFsIENlcnRpZmljYXRlIFNp Z25pbmcxKTAnBgNVBAMTIFN0YXJ0Q29tIENlcnRpZmljYXRpb24gQXV0aG9yaXR5MB4XDTA3 MTAyNDIxMDMzM1oXDTE3MTAyNDIxMDMzM1owgYwxCzAJBgNVBAYTAklMMRYwFAYDVQQKEw1T dGFydENvbSBMdGQuMSswKQYDVQQLEyJTZWN1cmUgRGlnaXRhbCBDZXJ0aWZpY2F0ZSBTaWdu aW5nMTgwNgYDVQQDEy9TdGFydENvbSBDbGFzcyAzIFByaW1hcnkgSW50ZXJtZWRpYXRlIENs aWVudCBDQTCCASIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADggEPADCCAQoCggEBALmjSW4SPiDKlAinvVeL ZOVfItiuP1aRHL530E7QUc9icCwL33+PH+Js1HAh8CgWFl34sOxx1FJyS/C4VLPRsqDfP72j tzCVUAL0DAxZ7wgzQvFz7x61jGxfhYhqYb1+PPOLkYBbkRIrPMg3dLEdKmXIYJYXDH+mB/V/ jLo73/Kb7h/rNoNg/oHHSv5Jolyvp5IY2btfcTBfW/telEFj5rDTX2juTvZ3Qhf3XQX5ca3Q 7A10zrUV/cWJOJ7F5RltbEIaboZmX5JBUb3FhUiAdBotehAX6DbDOuYoJtVxmGof6GuVGcPo 98K4TJf8FHo+UA9EOVDp/W7fCqKT4sXk/XkCAwEAAaOCAa0wggGpMA8GA1UdEwEB/wQFMAMB Af8wDgYDVR0PAQH/BAQDAgEGMB0GA1UdDgQWBBR7iZySlyShhEcCy3T8LvSs3DLl8zAfBgNV HSMEGDAWgBROC+8apEBbpRdphzDKNGhD0EGu8jBmBggrBgEFBQcBAQRaMFgwJwYIKwYBBQUH MAGGG2h0dHA6Ly9vY3NwLnN0YXJ0c3NsLmNvbS9jYTAtBggrBgEFBQcwAoYhaHR0cDovL3d3 dy5zdGFydHNzbC5jb20vc2ZzY2EuY3J0MFsGA1UdHwRUMFIwJ6AloCOGIWh0dHA6Ly93d3cu c3RhcnRzc2wuY29tL3Nmc2NhLmNybDAnoCWgI4YhaHR0cDovL2NybC5zdGFydHNzbC5jb20v c2ZzY2EuY3JsMIGABgNVHSAEeTB3MHUGCysGAQQBgbU3AQIBMGYwLgYIKwYBBQUHAgEWImh0 dHA6Ly93d3cuc3RhcnRzc2wuY29tL3BvbGljeS5wZGYwNAYIKwYBBQUHAgEWKGh0dHA6Ly93 d3cuc3RhcnRzc2wuY29tL2ludGVybWVkaWF0ZS5wZGYwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQELBQADggIBAGpd SbdLFMhirxK37V4gE00+uW74UdAXtDgQI3AsRZWtaRtKHgAxFBSteqz4kDkeAjH/1b+K8tQR 6cxSI2nho7qOaPW/UpzOfSS/MeKK/9vfM2lfs+uItXH7LWtvS9wD1erfH1a+BXHCrCp4LA1l fADDhRIiGTSS3i0Zu5xV3INNRHrCCCl6patltQ8RZTqzDMri7ombgIxjN51Zo7xV77EZcThV 0GA8iIN+7T53uHhUJpjfLIztHs/69OclRvHux9hCflfOm7GY5Sc4nqjfES+5XPArGGWiQSEk ez37QfXqsxO3oCHK4b3DFZysG4uyOuC/WL80ab3muQ3tgwjBhq0D3JZN5kvu5gSuNZPa1WrV hEgXkd6C7s5stqB6/htVpshG08jRz9DEutGM9oKQ1ncTivbfPNx7pILoHWvvT7N5i/puVoNu bPUmLXh/2wA6wzAzuuoONiIL14Xpw6jLSnqpaLWElo2yTIFZ/CU/nCvvpW1Dj1457P3Ci9bD 0RPkWSR+CuucpgxrEmaw4UOLxflzuYYaq1RJwygOO5K0s2bAWOcXpgteyUOnQ3d/EjJAWRri 2v0ubiq+4H3KUOMlbznlPAY/1T8YyyJPM88+Ueahe/AW1zoUwZayNcTnuM7cq6yBV8Wr3GOI LFXhtT0UVuJLChPMJKVKVsa7qNorlLkMMIIGxzCCBa+gAwIBAgICAIswDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEF BQAwgYwxCzAJBgNVBAYTAklMMRYwFAYDVQQKEw1TdGFydENvbSBMdGQuMSswKQYDVQQLEyJT ZWN1cmUgRGlnaXRhbCBDZXJ0aWZpY2F0ZSBTaWduaW5nMTgwNgYDVQQDEy9TdGFydENvbSBD bGFzcyAzIFByaW1hcnkgSW50ZXJtZWRpYXRlIENsaWVudCBDQTAeFw0xMDEwMTQwMTM2MzRa Fw0xMjEwMTQxMjAxMDdaMIHAMSAwHgYDVQQNExcyNzQ1ODEtOU5YMDRxeExEYjBvNDY5VDEL MAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxETAPBgNVBAgTCENvbG9yYWRvMQ8wDQYDVQQHEwZEZW52ZXIxLDAqBgNV BAsTI1N0YXJ0Q29tIFRydXN0ZWQgQ2VydGlmaWNhdGUgTWVtYmVyMRowGAYDVQQDExFQZXRl ciBTYWludC1BbmRyZTEhMB8GCSqGSIb3DQEJARYSc3RwZXRlckBzdHBldGVyLmltMIIBIjAN BgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAuERvnrkpQTx9wbJfgxbNKEYvt0IilecZRUM6 wrbCzIUPCocuYhaAJcQoqIyHaKybPQ7f+DIGIAolAa3dHnNdlsXP2smTft/ZNpj10PIG5bil NAqLUYwmLJaEaqY7BMW8423U3blW43/luLJk/Pq4OsWcw7AK3LeVh1U/HOgqhin26N3h72X1 nbLEpZFrgcp8egmWtXLCbLBDMqUK3j6wjLldni79muzYEVqU0A5GqSeb8Wc4kIx8VI5yL24J KzinG2iVRP5ZDEbOZETzBXJabUsV56XSxqPG9DK6ke+ybCiL/wKV1HFqdtFB1y25lfvHgOP2 gyEApBKEDNjgLmKyyQIDAQABo4IC+zCCAvcwCQYDVR0TBAIwADALBgNVHQ8EBAMCBLAwHQYD VR0lBBYwFAYIKwYBBQUHAwIGCCsGAQUFBwMEMB0GA1UdDgQWBBS2EW2iNB+g0EibKJLBdv8I eLovVDAfBgNVHSMEGDAWgBR7iZySlyShhEcCy3T8LvSs3DLl8zAdBgNVHREEFjAUgRJzdHBl dGVyQHN0cGV0ZXIuaW0wggFCBgNVHSAEggE5MIIBNTCCATEGCysGAQQBgbU3AQICMIIBIDAu BggrBgEFBQcCARYiaHR0cDovL3d3dy5zdGFydHNzbC5jb20vcG9saWN5LnBkZjA0BggrBgEF BQcCARYoaHR0cDovL3d3dy5zdGFydHNzbC5jb20vaW50ZXJtZWRpYXRlLnBkZjCBtwYIKwYB BQUHAgIwgaowFBYNU3RhcnRDb20gTHRkLjADAgEBGoGRTGltaXRlZCBMaWFiaWxpdHksIHNl ZSBzZWN0aW9uICpMZWdhbCBMaW1pdGF0aW9ucyogb2YgdGhlIFN0YXJ0Q29tIENlcnRpZmlj YXRpb24gQXV0aG9yaXR5IFBvbGljeSBhdmFpbGFibGUgYXQgaHR0cDovL3d3dy5zdGFydHNz bC5jb20vcG9saWN5LnBkZjBjBgNVHR8EXDBaMCugKaAnhiVodHRwOi8vd3d3LnN0YXJ0c3Ns LmNvbS9jcnR1My1jcmwuY3JsMCugKaAnhiVodHRwOi8vY3JsLnN0YXJ0c3NsLmNvbS9jcnR1 My1jcmwuY3JsMIGOBggrBgEFBQcBAQSBgTB/MDkGCCsGAQUFBzABhi1odHRwOi8vb2NzcC5z dGFydHNzbC5jb20vc3ViL2NsYXNzMy9jbGllbnQvY2EwQgYIKwYBBQUHMAKGNmh0dHA6Ly93 d3cuc3RhcnRzc2wuY29tL2NlcnRzL3N1Yi5jbGFzczMuY2xpZW50LmNhLmNydDAjBgNVHRIE HDAahhhodHRwOi8vd3d3LnN0YXJ0c3NsLmNvbS8wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQADggEBADVtbXJG tKAr55xc/OUM546gXUybI72Bank0w739Mv+9BBNtq9rMEvCnLmSKhBi76c1mdXh6zXs8RQDo 6nR/aPabE3llF2T4z80smi9jfnl3y9dpu9TcgDoqDLZ7a2lBlW656XAAQzHjvLp2MC7/mxlg PYH2axa+q40mAYM20GbNsAEGbWQT1IqIh0BcLLsgbaMJHbyG/57zd9JLyMX3Vry1L1fJRQr3 GeLxMV5RtxN+mBgxrwFz/cOc09COiFExlsHgekpB5O43gqsAU16MXypyoSt4MrSfKTMHIGx6 2RF/M6vqUlvhi28gk2ZUvQ/+OX5+gjcZyooEzAAn4RuOKNswggbHMIIFr6ADAgECAgIAizAN BgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFADCBjDELMAkGA1UEBhMCSUwxFjAUBgNVBAoTDVN0YXJ0Q29tIEx0ZC4x KzApBgNVBAsTIlNlY3VyZSBEaWdpdGFsIENlcnRpZmljYXRlIFNpZ25pbmcxODA2BgNVBAMT L1N0YXJ0Q29tIENsYXNzIDMgUHJpbWFyeSBJbnRlcm1lZGlhdGUgQ2xpZW50IENBMB4XDTEw MTAxNDAxMzYzNFoXDTEyMTAxNDEyMDEwN1owgcAxIDAeBgNVBA0TFzI3NDU4MS05TlgwNHF4 TERiMG80NjlUMQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzERMA8GA1UECBMIQ29sb3JhZG8xDzANBgNVBAcTBkRl bnZlcjEsMCoGA1UECxMjU3RhcnRDb20gVHJ1c3RlZCBDZXJ0aWZpY2F0ZSBNZW1iZXIxGjAY BgNVBAMTEVBldGVyIFNhaW50LUFuZHJlMSEwHwYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFhJzdHBldGVyQHN0cGV0 ZXIuaW0wggEiMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4IBDwAwggEKAoIBAQC4RG+euSlBPH3Bsl+DFs0o Ri+3QiKV5xlFQzrCtsLMhQ8Khy5iFoAlxCiojIdorJs9Dt/4MgYgCiUBrd0ec12Wxc/ayZN+ 39k2mPXQ8gbluKU0CotRjCYsloRqpjsExbzjbdTduVbjf+W4smT8+rg6xZzDsArct5WHVT8c 6CqGKfbo3eHvZfWdssSlkWuBynx6CZa1csJssEMypQrePrCMuV2eLv2a7NgRWpTQDkapJ5vx ZziQjHxUjnIvbgkrOKcbaJVE/lkMRs5kRPMFclptSxXnpdLGo8b0MrqR77JsKIv/ApXUcWp2 0UHXLbmV+8eA4/aDIQCkEoQM2OAuYrLJAgMBAAGjggL7MIIC9zAJBgNVHRMEAjAAMAsGA1Ud DwQEAwIEsDAdBgNVHSUEFjAUBggrBgEFBQcDAgYIKwYBBQUHAwQwHQYDVR0OBBYEFLYRbaI0 H6DQSJsoksF2/wh4ui9UMB8GA1UdIwQYMBaAFHuJnJKXJKGERwLLdPwu9KzcMuXzMB0GA1Ud EQQWMBSBEnN0cGV0ZXJAc3RwZXRlci5pbTCCAUIGA1UdIASCATkwggE1MIIBMQYLKwYBBAGB tTcBAgIwggEgMC4GCCsGAQUFBwIBFiJodHRwOi8vd3d3LnN0YXJ0c3NsLmNvbS9wb2xpY3ku cGRmMDQGCCsGAQUFBwIBFihodHRwOi8vd3d3LnN0YXJ0c3NsLmNvbS9pbnRlcm1lZGlhdGUu cGRmMIG3BggrBgEFBQcCAjCBqjAUFg1TdGFydENvbSBMdGQuMAMCAQEagZFMaW1pdGVkIExp YWJpbGl0eSwgc2VlIHNlY3Rpb24gKkxlZ2FsIExpbWl0YXRpb25zKiBvZiB0aGUgU3RhcnRD b20gQ2VydGlmaWNhdGlvbiBBdXRob3JpdHkgUG9saWN5IGF2YWlsYWJsZSBhdCBodHRwOi8v d3d3LnN0YXJ0c3NsLmNvbS9wb2xpY3kucGRmMGMGA1UdHwRcMFowK6ApoCeGJWh0dHA6Ly93 d3cuc3RhcnRzc2wuY29tL2NydHUzLWNybC5jcmwwK6ApoCeGJWh0dHA6Ly9jcmwuc3RhcnRz c2wuY29tL2NydHUzLWNybC5jcmwwgY4GCCsGAQUFBwEBBIGBMH8wOQYIKwYBBQUHMAGGLWh0 dHA6Ly9vY3NwLnN0YXJ0c3NsLmNvbS9zdWIvY2xhc3MzL2NsaWVudC9jYTBCBggrBgEFBQcw AoY2aHR0cDovL3d3dy5zdGFydHNzbC5jb20vY2VydHMvc3ViLmNsYXNzMy5jbGllbnQuY2Eu Y3J0MCMGA1UdEgQcMBqGGGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuc3RhcnRzc2wuY29tLzANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUF AAOCAQEANW1tcka0oCvnnFz85QznjqBdTJsjvYFqeTTDvf0y/70EE22r2swS8KcuZIqEGLvp zWZ1eHrNezxFAOjqdH9o9psTeWUXZPjPzSyaL2N+eXfL12m71NyAOioMtntraUGVbrnpcABD MeO8unYwLv+bGWA9gfZrFr6rjSYBgzbQZs2wAQZtZBPUioiHQFwsuyBtowkdvIb/nvN30kvI xfdWvLUvV8lFCvcZ4vExXlG3E36YGDGvAXP9w5zT0I6IUTGWweB6SkHk7jeCqwBTXoxfKnKh K3gytJ8pMwcgbHrZEX8zq+pSW+GLbyCTZlS9D/45fn6CNxnKigTMACfhG44o2zGCA80wggPJ AgEBMIGTMIGMMQswCQYDVQQGEwJJTDEWMBQGA1UEChMNU3RhcnRDb20gTHRkLjErMCkGA1UE CxMiU2VjdXJlIERpZ2l0YWwgQ2VydGlmaWNhdGUgU2lnbmluZzE4MDYGA1UEAxMvU3RhcnRD b20gQ2xhc3MgMyBQcmltYXJ5IEludGVybWVkaWF0ZSBDbGllbnQgQ0ECAgCLMAkGBSsOAwIa BQCgggIOMBgGCSqGSIb3DQEJAzELBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHAYJKoZIhvcNAQkFMQ8XDTExMDYx MzE2MzYxNVowIwYJKoZIhvcNAQkEMRYEFH6JK6U5te4q3XDnPq2rSTzBfwNkMF8GCSqGSIb3 DQEJDzFSMFAwCwYJYIZIAWUDBAECMAoGCCqGSIb3DQMHMA4GCCqGSIb3DQMCAgIAgDANBggq hkiG9w0DAgIBQDAHBgUrDgMCBzANBggqhkiG9w0DAgIBKDCBpAYJKwYBBAGCNxAEMYGWMIGT MIGMMQswCQYDVQQGEwJJTDEWMBQGA1UEChMNU3RhcnRDb20gTHRkLjErMCkGA1UECxMiU2Vj dXJlIERpZ2l0YWwgQ2VydGlmaWNhdGUgU2lnbmluZzE4MDYGA1UEAxMvU3RhcnRDb20gQ2xh c3MgMyBQcmltYXJ5IEludGVybWVkaWF0ZSBDbGllbnQgQ0ECAgCLMIGmBgsqhkiG9w0BCRAC CzGBlqCBkzCBjDELMAkGA1UEBhMCSUwxFjAUBgNVBAoTDVN0YXJ0Q29tIEx0ZC4xKzApBgNV BAsTIlNlY3VyZSBEaWdpdGFsIENlcnRpZmljYXRlIFNpZ25pbmcxODA2BgNVBAMTL1N0YXJ0 Q29tIENsYXNzIDMgUHJpbWFyeSBJbnRlcm1lZGlhdGUgQ2xpZW50IENBAgIAizANBgkqhkiG 9w0BAQEFAASCAQCB0ElaMSf8HO2FTrGs5UDSZuzn1wmGUVg4Z6t/YBam4xHyisVNm6Dbdiap ZuinGFykXlxJa9lnxWhGKIY6te/x5o7pFye+hr/1bD72VoRdIuMxy2U7aclQedF+Jfag2C+/ f09Wg6hF7wwdYY1uZ28nx2b1Bv++444rvi0Ic3hWRg7pBwDaZJRlbceiiKv5zA6ZBnFO/k3d d6v0JzhoJUfG32fK3TB9VYvB+Ur+c8ptbRPvGIaJlvSlkApxOx5TazvxCP3YQJ25hnMMS0pN o56M7Ei4bwUA/SnnGJXCaWsI0GtfDq7X1+1CuedHYJBxSynRZMxQX2GcdpFwA7+O8EjAAAAA AAAA --------------ms080803060208000800030601-- From msk@cloudmark.com Mon Jun 13 09:38:01 2011 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 29CBD21F85E7 for ; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 09:38:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.432 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.432 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.167, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4PZaMIrUfFH2 for ; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 09:38:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C167521F85D8 for ; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 09:38:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by malice.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.71]) with mapi; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 09:38:00 -0700 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "domainrep@ietf.org" Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 09:37:59 -0700 Thread-Topic: [domainrep] New to the reputation list Thread-Index: Acwp6AfhRlr9LbpXQUWxdM55Hlxe9AAACXbQ Message-ID: References: <20110613100715.49619bae@hydrogen.roaringpenguin.com> <4DF63B3A.2090906@stpeter.im> <4DF63C7F.9030700@stpeter.im> In-Reply-To: <4DF63C7F.9030700@stpeter.im> 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] New to the reputation list 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, 13 Jun 2011 16:38:01 -0000 PiAtLS0tLU9yaWdpbmFsIE1lc3NhZ2UtLS0tLQ0KPiBGcm9tOiBQZXRlciBTYWludC1BbmRyZSBb bWFpbHRvOnN0cGV0ZXJAc3RwZXRlci5pbV0NCj4gU2VudDogTW9uZGF5LCBKdW5lIDEzLCAyMDEx IDk6MzYgQU0NCj4gVG86IE11cnJheSBTLiBLdWNoZXJhd3kNCj4gQ2M6IGRvbWFpbnJlcEBpZXRm Lm9yZw0KPiBTdWJqZWN0OiBSZTogW2RvbWFpbnJlcF0gTmV3IHRvIHRoZSByZXB1dGF0aW9uIGxp c3QNCj4gDQo+IEkgdGVuZCB0byB0aGluayBvZiB0aGluZ3MgaW4gdGVybXMgbGlrZSAicmVwdXRh dGlvbiBhcyBhIHNlbmRlciBvZg0KPiBlbWFpbCIuIElmIEkgc2VuZCBtZXNzYWdlcyB0aGF0IGFy ZSB1c2VmdWwsIEkgZ2V0IG1vZGRlZCB1cCAobGlrZQ0KPiBTbGFzaGRvdCAiKzEgaW5zaWdodGZ1 bCIgb3Igd2hhdGV2ZXIpLCB3aGVyZWFzIGlmIEkgc2VuZCBtZXNzYWdlcyB0aGF0DQo+IGFyZSBh bm5veWluZyBJIGdldCBtb2RkZWQgZG93bi4gSG93ZXZlciwgImdvb2QiIG9yICJiYWQiIGRvbid0 IG5lZWQgdG8NCj4gYmUgc3ViamVjdGl2ZSBqdWRnZW1lbnRzLCB0aGV5IGNvdWxkIGJlIHRoaW5n cyBsaWtlICJ1c2VzIERLSU0iIG9yDQo+ICJzaWducyBtZXNzYWdlcyB3aXRoIGEgY2VydCBvciBr ZXkiIGV0Yy4NCg0KSSBzdXBwb3NlIHRoZSByZWdpc3RyeSBmb3Igdm9jYWJ1bGFyaWVzIGNvdWxk IGluY2x1ZGUgYSBmaWVsZCB0aGF0IGluZGljYXRlcyB3aGV0aGVyIG9yIG5vdCBuZWdhdGl2ZSB2 YWx1ZXMgYXJlIGxlZ2FsIGZvciB0aGF0IHZvY2FidWxhcnkuDQoNCg== From dfs@roaringpenguin.com Mon Jun 13 09:51:15 2011 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 4234E11E8161 for ; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 09:51:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id B3FTuVS+kKH0 for ; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 09:51:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from colo3.roaringpenguin.com (www.ipv6.roaringpenguin.com [IPv6:2607:f748:1200:fb:70:38:112:54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 486DE11E8149 for ; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 09:51:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vanadium.roaringpenguin.com (vanadium.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.10.23]) by colo3.roaringpenguin.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5+lenny1) with ESMTP id p5DGpBC4016430 for ; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 12:51:12 -0400 Received: from hydrogen.roaringpenguin.com (hydrogen.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.10.1]) by vanadium.roaringpenguin.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5+lenny1) with ESMTP id p5DGp8l2014229 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 12:51:09 -0400 Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 12:51:07 -0400 From: "David F. Skoll" To: domainrep@ietf.org Message-ID: <20110613125107.4538daee@hydrogen.roaringpenguin.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20110613100715.49619bae@hydrogen.roaringpenguin.com> <4DF63B3A.2090906@stpeter.im> Organization: Roaring Penguin Software Inc. X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.6 (GTK+ 2.20.1; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=roaringpenguin.com; h=date :from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=beta; bh=tx3zwq5xWUhf 5VXMGG/lJ0HqgSw=; b=JXwtfh9RKXaIP6rciBmE1GOC0fComj2LOe3V1VF/XiZR EVZtflRb9FcicjawjF+NYwIKuHrkh4KwbN2RGrmYgLzKQ3a3v1wTc9VXuf0opzcf H2ImdcWcX7CqNYImEq0a86YO0wdCElK/Ler0/022jgv1xnCBjHFuI/G6AFq+sw0= X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 192.168.7.18 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.72 on 192.168.10.23 X-CanIt-Geo: No geolocation information available for 192.168.10.23 X-CanItPRO-Stream: outgoing (inherits from default) X-CanIt-Archive-Cluster: SQVyZJxqklY5buiWXYCN4T/BjiM X-CanIt-Archived-As: base/20110613 / 01ETsPcrf Subject: Re: [domainrep] New to the reputation list 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, 13 Jun 2011 16:51:15 -0000 On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 09:32:37 -0700 "Murray S. Kucherawy" wrote: > Could be, but it depends on the assertion. For example, I can't > think of what a negative number for SENDS-SPAM would be. It'd be SENDS-HAM. It's important to capture that. It's why our reputation system lists Yahoo! mail servers (for example... I don't mean to pick on Yahoo!) as "mixed" rather than good or bad. Regards, David. From Adam_Wosotowsky@mcafee.com Mon Jun 13 10:10:38 2011 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 90A2D11E8183 for ; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 10:10:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 40IUzXHN2XSm for ; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 10:10:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dalsmrelay2.nai.com (dalsmrelay2.nai.com [205.227.136.216]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DD1611E80ED for ; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 10:10:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from (unknown [10.64.5.52]) by dalsmrelay2.nai.com with smtp id 2f87_4c7d_fd90fe70_95df_11e0_9218_00219b929abd; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 12:10:08 -0500 Received: from AMERDALEXMB1.corp.nai.org ([fe80::b534:4a0d:1289:2d2d]) by DALEXHT2.corp.nai.org ([::1]) with mapi; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 12:09:25 -0500 From: To: , Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 12:09:24 -0500 Thread-Topic: [domainrep] New to the reputation list Thread-Index: Acwp51SuKHOBYpoFQq2bYYQQSCrBmwABOWtw Message-ID: References: <20110613100715.49619bae@hydrogen.roaringpenguin.com> <4DF63B3A.2090906@stpeter.im> In-Reply-To: <4DF63B3A.2090906@stpeter.im> 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 Cc: domainrep@ietf.org Subject: Re: [domainrep] New to the reputation list 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, 13 Jun 2011 17:10:38 -0000 DQpJdCBhbGwgZGVwZW5kcyBvbiB3aGF0IDAgbWVhbnMgaW4gdGhpcyBjYXNlLiAgSWYgeW91IGhh dmUgYSByZXB1dGF0aW9uIHN5c3RlbSB0aGF0IGhhcyBleHRlbnNpdmUgY292ZXJhZ2UgYW5kIGEg bG9uZyBtZW1vcnkgdGhlbiBhIG5ldyBzZW5kZXIgbWF5IGJlIGEgY2F1c2UgZm9yIHN1c3BpY2lv biBtZXJlbHkgYmVjYXVzZSBpdCBpcyBuZXcsIGJlZm9yZSBvdGhlciBiZWhhdmlvciBhdHRyaWJ1 dGVzIGFyZSBmYWN0b3JlZCBpbiAod2hpY2ggY291bGQgaW5jcmVhc2UgdGhlIHRydXN0d29ydGhp bmVzcyBvZiBhIG5ldyBzZW5kZXIgYXBwcm9wcmlhdGVseSkuIA0KDQotLWFkYW0NCg0KDQo+IC0t LS0tT3JpZ2luYWwgTWVzc2FnZS0tLS0tDQo+IEZyb206IGRvbWFpbnJlcC1ib3VuY2VzQGlldGYu b3JnIFttYWlsdG86ZG9tYWlucmVwLWJvdW5jZXNAaWV0Zi5vcmddIE9uDQo+IEJlaGFsZiBPZiBQ ZXRlciBTYWludC1BbmRyZQ0KPiBTZW50OiBNb25kYXksIEp1bmUgMTMsIDIwMTEgMTI6MzEgUE0N Cj4gVG86IE11cnJheSBTLiBLdWNoZXJhd3kNCj4gQ2M6IGRvbWFpbnJlcEBpZXRmLm9yZw0KPiBT dWJqZWN0OiBSZTogW2RvbWFpbnJlcF0gTmV3IHRvIHRoZSByZXB1dGF0aW9uIGxpc3QNCj4gDQo+ IE9uIDYvMTMvMTEgMTA6MjcgQU0sIE11cnJheSBTLiBLdWNoZXJhd3kgd3JvdGU6DQo+IA0KPiA+ IFRoZXJlIHdhcyBhbHNvIHNvbWUgaGFsbHdheSB0cmFjayBjaGF0dGVyIGF0IE1BQVdHIHRoYXQg c3VnZ2VzdGVkDQo+ID4gYmVpbmcgYWJsZSB0byBleHByZXNzIGEgcmVwdXRhdGlvbiBiZXR3ZWVu IC0xIGFuZCAxLCByYXRoZXIgdGhhbiAwDQo+IGFuZA0KPiA+IDEuDQo+IA0KPiBGV0lXLCB0aGF0 J3MgaG93IEkndmUgYWx3YXlzIHRob3VnaHQgb2YgaXQgLS0gYW4gZW50aXR5IHRoYXQgaXMgbmV3 IHRvDQo+IHRoZSBuZXR3b3JrIHN0YXJ0cyBvdXQgYXQgemVybywgYW5kIGRlcGVuZGluZyBvbiBp dHMgYmVoYXZpb3IgaXQgd2lsbA0KPiBiZSBtb2RkZWQgdXAgb3IgZG93bi4NCj4gDQo+IFBldGVy DQo+IA0KPiAtLQ0KPiBQZXRlciBTYWludC1BbmRyZQ0KPiBodHRwczovL3N0cGV0ZXIuaW0vDQo+ IA0KPiANCg0K From jqcoffey@gmail.com Wed Jun 15 03:11:22 2011 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 D19C611E8070 for ; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 03:11:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.998 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_44=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7DpEiTLPL21Z for ; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 03:11:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vw0-f44.google.com (mail-vw0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C750311E8083 for ; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 03:11:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: by vws12 with SMTP id 12so237910vws.31 for ; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 03:11:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=PNuFyGf4N7Cli4AKMxG98GWIOALF2SurzyamfPrVdQw=; b=uftO6VTQB8fkG+ndX1ask8pYxRhbmG4Glexaq/1MzHcNWkju+xpP4z5JIBnoR4S7Vn MLBaZoifSmlXKw1+OvdrBVzSUoDHSssf4hvv1GiiUi3XgxT3w5iONle3slq4EGGDyD0L bSEepDWXlEmxa9kJHTXjX/fs08G7rt7ch9l2A= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; b=dxlrNALoXAhsr5feQSY5dnSJQRkiZyyREAJt4fi8E5pkw7oNs9bO3FSqXY5p3vIcnz Cuv9MKI/zWDGerX8qnJXbOfTXNPA3OvWeAGyXXmY1t9G10oCUvERt5MR97qlhtqJvE/x +vTPycXxuQRLJXrsyK2xcslOZZMKiBocC2Orc= Received: by 10.52.30.135 with SMTP id s7mr449554vdh.270.1308132681104; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 03:11:21 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.164.68 with HTTP; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 03:11:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Justin Coffey Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 12:11:01 +0200 Message-ID: To: domainrep@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec517c4b8c6bd9604a5bd5ffb Subject: [domainrep] New Member to the List 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, 15 Jun 2011 10:14:27 -0000 --bcaec517c4b8c6bd9604a5bd5ffb Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hello, I have recently joined the list for the domain reputation working group and would like to quickly introduce myself. My name is Justin Coffey and I currently work for a French email sender, Come&Stay as the director of technical operations. Previously I was the "head tech guy" at CoolerEmail, a small ESP in San Diego. My interests in this group are probably similar to many others'. Obviously, domain/sender reputation is getting more and more important and I think as a professional working in the ISP/ESP world it is important to be involved at a fundamental level. At a personal/tech geek level, I am intruiged by the possibilities that the pending IPv6 change will bring and what innovation will follow... and I hope to add my voice and ideas to the discussion! As far as what I might offer the group at a more pratical level, my skillset is as follows: * quite a good Perl coder * not a half bad Java coder * good knowledge of sysadmin type stuff (network design, *nix administration, etc.) I do work full time and so free time is always in question, but I would hope to help whenever and however I can. Thanks for letting me participate! -Justin -- jqcoffey@gmail.com ----- --bcaec517c4b8c6bd9604a5bd5ffb Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello,
=C2=A0 =C2=A0I have recently joined the list for the domain repu= tation working group and would like to quickly introduce myself.
=
My name is Justin Coffey and I currently work for a French e= mail sender, Come&Stay as the director of technical operations. =C2=A0P= reviously I was the "head tech guy" at CoolerEmail, a small ESP i= n San Diego.

My interests in this group are probably similar to many= others'. =C2=A0Obviously, domain/sender reputation is getting more and= more important and I think as a professional working in the ISP/ESP world = it is important to be involved at a fundamental level. =C2=A0At a personal/= tech geek level, I am intruiged by the possibilities that the pending IPv6 = change will bring and what innovation will follow... and I hope to add my v= oice and ideas to the discussion!

As far as what I might offer the group at a more pratic= al level, my skillset is as follows:
* quite a good Perl coder
* not a half bad Java coder
* good knowledge of sysadmin = type stuff (network design, *nix administration, etc.)

I do work full time and so free time is always in quest= ion, but I would hope to help whenever and however I can.

Thanks for letting me participate!

-Justin=

--
jqcoffey@gmail.com
= -----
--bcaec517c4b8c6bd9604a5bd5ffb-- From bmcdowell@paypal-inc.com Fri Jun 17 12:24:55 2011 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 060189E8048 for ; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 12:24:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.117 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.117 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_RFC_BOGUSMX=1.482, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id i5jRO9Op8Cw1 for ; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 12:24:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from den-mipot-002.corp.ebay.com (den-mipot-002.corp.ebay.com [216.113.175.153]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0FE69E8031 for ; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 12:24:53 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: s=ppinc; d=paypal-inc.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=X-EBay-Corp:X-IronPort-AV:Received:Received:From:To:CC: Date:Subject:Thread-Topic:Thread-Index:Message-ID: References:In-Reply-To:Accept-Language:Content-Language: X-MS-Has-Attach:X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:acceptlanguage: x-ems-proccessed:x-ems-stamp:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version:X-CFilter; b=cAGy3CdpYEvtmz+u32gJlQL6tzk+EuIB2mn9qHLmB2jslpUvHVTbCzhG 4CNTD9WjIJH2JuCHnnmVcgi3UaQVng4FFrBFwmhU75dgAdPe41VnR0TXe S9tJFkZM5R8puy9; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=paypal-inc.com; i=bmcdowell@paypal-inc.com; q=dns/txt; s=ppinc; t=1308338694; x=1339874694; h=from:to:cc:date:subject:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=8fswS9CZGXCMm5caiJ0qO30CeEz8eEGTICPrd9WQ+3E=; b=oq6CwyIpu0ngI0HHrrfJCxfzNTUwasffwklB4fOH+f8OD9R2m8AMHdYx K3qSiwOYlb7sQkhvFulIgR7uIptRg669cZbq8c6vbaeFQfxHRPStxffyb 1N08m/XF16CRETb; X-EBay-Corp: Yes X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,382,1304319600"; d="scan'208";a="2912621" Received: from den-vtenf-002.corp.ebay.com (HELO DEN-MEXHT-002.corp.ebay.com) ([10.101.112.213]) by den-mipot-002.corp.ebay.com with ESMTP; 17 Jun 2011 12:24:53 -0700 Received: from DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com ([10.241.16.225]) by DEN-MEXHT-002.corp.ebay.com ([10.241.17.53]) with mapi; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 13:24:52 -0600 From: "McDowell, Brett" To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 13:24:50 -0600 Thread-Topic: [domainrep] At long last, some drafts and a charter Thread-Index: AcwtJDsAjaHW7atxT3Wuz0omCWlqGA== Message-ID: <17DF89B2-98D4-4ABF-8044-64ACD05AC7D8@paypal-inc.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US x-ems-proccessed: 10SqDH0iR7ekR7SRpKqm5A== x-ems-stamp: /ct95DQG3+7OmfTUPayQDQ== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter: Scanned Cc: "domainrep@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [domainrep] At long last, some drafts and a charter 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, 17 Jun 2011 19:24:55 -0000 I'm interested in this Working Group, though my participation will be limit= ed to the mailing list. On Jun 2, 2011, at 12:53 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: Greetings, Although there hasn=92t been much activity on this list in several months, = the ideas have certainly not died. Back then, Nathaniel Borenstein posted = a vision about a flexible reputation system might look like, and I=92ve man= aged to convert his idea into a suite of drafts that lay out a general fram= ework, some IANA work, and then a couple of example applications that use t= he framework. I=92ve also included a mechanism for query and response usin= g DNS and HTTP, and left a blank one open as well for a UDP method in case = there=92s resistance to doing a DNS-based application. I have a potential platform for doing both server-side and client-side samp= le implementations of such work, though it=92ll be a bit longer before they= =92re visible, and I=92d like to use these drafts as a basis for doing so w= hich is why it=92s important to get the community discussing this stuff onc= e again. I=92ve attached the last version of the draft charter for a working group t= o work on a general reputation framework using these drafts as a basis, and= requested a BoF in Quebec City based on the previous momentum and these dr= afts. I=92m hoping the enthusiasm for the idea isn=92t as dead as the list= has been. Please have a look at the drafts and this charter and provide commentary. = I=92d love to see some momentum here in time for Quebec City and possibly o= ther related meetings before then. Thanks, -MSK _______________________________________________ domainrep mailing list domainrep@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep From jdfalk-lists@cybernothing.org Thu Jun 23 12:56:37 2011 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 800D111E807D for ; Thu, 23 Jun 2011 12:56:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.524 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.524 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C5jYVuHyyyNA for ; Thu, 23 Jun 2011 12:56:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ocelope.disgruntled.net (ocelope.disgruntled.net [97.107.131.76]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA07411E8072 for ; Thu, 23 Jun 2011 12:56:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.191] (adsl-69-228-65-174.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [69.228.65.174]) (authenticated bits=0) by ocelope.disgruntled.net (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5+lenny1) with ESMTP id p5NJu3Im023544 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Thu, 23 Jun 2011 12:56:35 -0700 X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.6.0 ocelope.disgruntled.net p5NJu3Im023544 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cybernothing.org; s=triac; t=1308858996; bh=f0cgTjMlq6ODBJ75u1h/B26JTmSWniJOu/8hPSfVK Vw=; h=Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:References:To; b=XXu7x90oL8oT 4U/7T0UPltXEvNv9xFPgNR0xeEQcfvsYZJTRTFxa0Zv67kJvT4/t8VaRN2Fd3KikNHu SVLSh4PGWV9x6Ajb7ObF/z2FJdqvzjG78kpoPyhqIHQ+FIh5VkxitZphZjVarNXOeNF nKFrGl1XUns5+QPs5si8WmFLM= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) From: "J.D. Falk" In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 12:56:03 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <6F77C7D3-2B81-4FED-BE8B-CB28F1C420E2@cybernothing.org> References: To: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Subject: Re: [domainrep] At long last, some drafts and a charter 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, 23 Jun 2011 19:56:37 -0000 Sorry I've been silent on this of late. It's very good to see the = progress (which I've been following carefully, if quietly), and I'm = looking forward to a BoF in Quebec. My employer, Return Path, will be interested in implementing once = something implementable is drafted. Can I get a +1 from other lurkers? On Jun 1, 2011, at 9:53 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > Greetings, > =20 > Although there hasn=92t been much activity on this list in several = months, the ideas have certainly not died. Back then, Nathaniel = Borenstein posted a vision about a flexible reputation system might look = like, and I=92ve managed to convert his idea into a suite of drafts that = lay out a general framework, some IANA work, and then a couple of = example applications that use the framework. I=92ve also included a = mechanism for query and response using DNS and HTTP, and left a blank = one open as well for a UDP method in case there=92s resistance to doing = a DNS-based application. > =20 > I have a potential platform for doing both server-side and client-side = sample implementations of such work, though it=92ll be a bit longer = before they=92re visible, and I=92d like to use these drafts as a basis = for doing so which is why it=92s important to get the community = discussing this stuff once again. > =20 > I=92ve attached the last version of the draft charter for a working = group to work on a general reputation framework using these drafts as a = basis, and requested a BoF in Quebec City based on the previous momentum = and these drafts. I=92m hoping the enthusiasm for the idea isn=92t as = dead as the list has been. > =20 > Please have a look at the drafts and this charter and provide = commentary. I=92d love to see some momentum here in time for Quebec = City and possibly other related meetings before then. > =20 > Thanks, > -MSK > _______________________________________________ > domainrep mailing list > domainrep@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep -- J.D. Falk the leading purveyor of industry counter-rhetoric solutions From madkins@fb.com Thu Jun 23 13:22:25 2011 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 E4DE511E817E for ; Thu, 23 Jun 2011 13:22:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.265 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NkzliF4lVq5H for ; Thu, 23 Jun 2011 13:22:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx0a-00082601.pphosted.com (mx0b-00082601.pphosted.com [67.231.153.30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 346A611E80AC for ; Thu, 23 Jun 2011 13:22:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0004060 [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-00082601.pphosted.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with SMTP id p5NKLwOn023685; Thu, 23 Jun 2011 13:22:20 -0700 Received: from mail.thefacebook.com (corpout1.snc1.tfbnw.net [66.220.144.38]) by mx0b-00082601.pphosted.com with ESMTP id x41bn86ae-8; Thu, 23 Jun 2011 13:22:18 -0700 Received: from SC-MBX02-4.TheFacebook.com ([fe80::e1f0:42de:c867:1385]) by sc-hub04.TheFacebook.com ([192.168.18.212]) with mapi id 14.01.0289.001; Thu, 23 Jun 2011 13:22:10 -0700 From: Michael Adkins To: "J.D. Falk" , "domainrep@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [domainrep] At long last, some drafts and a charter Thread-Index: AQHMMd+tGOtm3KaeSkiNnTvWEusjt5TLYrSA Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 20:22:09 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <6F77C7D3-2B81-4FED-BE8B-CB28F1C420E2@cybernothing.org> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.10.0.110310 x-originating-ip: [192.168.18.252] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-ID: <591F36C73E2E5641A104A0EFCF82C8B0@fb.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.4.6813, 1.0.148, 0.0.0000 definitions=2011-06-23_06:2011-06-23, 2011-06-23, 1970-01-01 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=fb_outbound_notspam policy=fb_outbound score=0 spamscore=0 ipscore=0 suspectscore=2 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=6.0.2-1012030000 definitions=main-1106230186 X-FB-Internal: deliver Subject: Re: [domainrep] At long last, some drafts and a charter 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, 23 Jun 2011 20:22:25 -0000 +1 On 6/23/11 12:56 PM, "J.D. Falk" wrote: >Sorry I've been silent on this of late. It's very good to see the >progress (which I've been following carefully, if quietly), and I'm >looking forward to a BoF in Quebec. > >My employer, Return Path, will be interested in implementing once >something implementable is drafted. > >Can I get a +1 from other lurkers? > > >On Jun 1, 2011, at 9:53 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > >> Greetings, >> =20 >> Although there hasn=B9t been much activity on this list in several >>months, the ideas have certainly not died. Back then, Nathaniel >>Borenstein posted a vision about a flexible reputation system might look >>like, and I=B9ve managed to convert his idea into a suite of drafts that >>lay out a general framework, some IANA work, and then a couple of >>example applications that use the framework. I=B9ve also included a >>mechanism for query and response using DNS and HTTP, and left a blank >>one open as well for a UDP method in case there=B9s resistance to doing a >>DNS-based application. >> =20 >> I have a potential platform for doing both server-side and client-side >>sample implementations of such work, though it=B9ll be a bit longer befor= e >>they=B9re visible, and I=B9d like to use these drafts as a basis for doin= g >>so which is why it=B9s important to get the community discussing this >>stuff once again. >> =20 >> I=B9ve attached the last version of the draft charter for a working grou= p >>to work on a general reputation framework using these drafts as a basis, >>and requested a BoF in Quebec City based on the previous momentum and >>these drafts. I=B9m hoping the enthusiasm for the idea isn=B9t as dead a= s >>the list has been. >> =20 >> Please have a look at the drafts and this charter and provide >>commentary. I=B9d love to see some momentum here in time for Quebec City >>and possibly other related meetings before then. >> =20 >> Thanks, >> -MSK >> _______________________________________________ >> domainrep mailing list >> domainrep@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep > >-- >J.D. Falk >the leading purveyor of industry counter-rhetoric solutions > >_______________________________________________ >domainrep mailing list >domainrep@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep From johnl@iecc.com Thu Jun 23 13:29:32 2011 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 12E3A21F8444 for ; Thu, 23 Jun 2011 13:29:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.48 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.48 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.719, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BzAtfNfRG6TX for ; Thu, 23 Jun 2011 13:29:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [64.57.183.53]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8975621F8449 for ; Thu, 23 Jun 2011 13:29:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 19899 invoked from network); 23 Jun 2011 20:29:31 -0000 Received: from mail1.iecc.com (64.57.183.56) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 23 Jun 2011 20:29:31 -0000 Date: 23 Jun 2011 20:29:09 -0000 Message-ID: <20110623202909.32742.qmail@joyce.lan> From: "John Levine" To: domainrep@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <6F77C7D3-2B81-4FED-BE8B-CB28F1C420E2@cybernothing.org> Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [domainrep] At long last, some drafts and a charter 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, 23 Jun 2011 20:29:32 -0000 >Can I get a +1 from other lurkers? I still have my doubts about how useful it will be, but it's certainly worth a try. I'll be in Quebec. R's, John From Adam_Wosotowsky@mcafee.com Thu Jun 23 13:46:49 2011 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 9C51511E811B for ; Thu, 23 Jun 2011 13:46:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JuORj1HJZsRx for ; Thu, 23 Jun 2011 13:46:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dalsmrelay2.nai.com (dalsmrelay2.nai.com [205.227.136.216]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB5D411E80D8 for ; Thu, 23 Jun 2011 13:46:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from (unknown [10.64.5.52]) by dalsmrelay2.nai.com with smtp id 437a_98af_e12e0884_9dd9_11e0_88e9_00219b929abd; Thu, 23 Jun 2011 15:46:33 -0500 Received: from AMERDALEXMB1.corp.nai.org ([fe80::b534:4a0d:1289:2d2d]) by DALEXHT2.corp.nai.org ([::1]) with mapi; Thu, 23 Jun 2011 15:46:15 -0500 From: To: , , Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 15:46:13 -0500 Thread-Topic: [domainrep] At long last, some drafts and a charter Thread-Index: AQHMMd+tGOtm3KaeSkiNnTvWEusjt5TLYrSAgAAF2XA= Message-ID: References: <6F77C7D3-2B81-4FED-BE8B-CB28F1C420E2@cybernothing.org> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [domainrep] At long last, some drafts and a charter 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, 23 Jun 2011 20:46:49 -0000 Just as a note on DNS, be aware that there are some DNS hosts (I won't name= names, but you should fix your stuff if you know who you are) which will l= owercase a dns query, so if you're doing a dns-based lookup which requires = case sensitivity then there will be issues depending on who is the dns prov= ider. --adam =20 > -----Original Message----- > From: domainrep-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:domainrep-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Michael Adkins > Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 4:22 PM > To: J.D. Falk; domainrep@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [domainrep] At long last, some drafts and a charter >=20 > +1 >=20 > On 6/23/11 12:56 PM, "J.D. Falk" wrote: >=20 > >Sorry I've been silent on this of late. It's very good to see the > >progress (which I've been following carefully, if quietly), and I'm > >looking forward to a BoF in Quebec. > > > >My employer, Return Path, will be interested in implementing once > >something implementable is drafted. > > > >Can I get a +1 from other lurkers? > > > > > >On Jun 1, 2011, at 9:53 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > > >> Greetings, > >> > >> Although there hasn=B9t been much activity on this list in several > >>months, the ideas have certainly not died. Back then, Nathaniel > >>Borenstein posted a vision about a flexible reputation system might > look > >>like, and I=B9ve managed to convert his idea into a suite of drafts > that > >>lay out a general framework, some IANA work, and then a couple of > >>example applications that use the framework. I=B9ve also included a > >>mechanism for query and response using DNS and HTTP, and left a blank > >>one open as well for a UDP method in case there=B9s resistance to doing > a > >>DNS-based application. > >> > >> I have a potential platform for doing both server-side and client- > side > >>sample implementations of such work, though it=B9ll be a bit longer > before > >>they=B9re visible, and I=B9d like to use these drafts as a basis for > doing > >>so which is why it=B9s important to get the community discussing this > >>stuff once again. > >> > >> I=B9ve attached the last version of the draft charter for a working > group > >>to work on a general reputation framework using these drafts as a > basis, > >>and requested a BoF in Quebec City based on the previous momentum and > >>these drafts. I=B9m hoping the enthusiasm for the idea isn=B9t as dead > as > >>the list has been. > >> > >> Please have a look at the drafts and this charter and provide > >>commentary. I=B9d love to see some momentum here in time for Quebec > City > >>and possibly other related meetings before then. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> -MSK > >> _______________________________________________ > >> domainrep mailing list > >> domainrep@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep > > > >-- > >J.D. Falk > >the leading purveyor of industry counter-rhetoric solutions > > > >_______________________________________________ > >domainrep mailing list > >domainrep@ietf.org > >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep >=20 > _______________________________________________ > domainrep mailing list > domainrep@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep From johnl@iecc.com Thu Jun 23 15:00:57 2011 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 815C821F858B for ; Thu, 23 Jun 2011 15:00:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.452 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.452 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.747, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C-AA4tsSS1vJ for ; Thu, 23 Jun 2011 15:00:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [64.57.183.53]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3E9221F858A for ; Thu, 23 Jun 2011 15:00:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 41384 invoked from network); 23 Jun 2011 22:00:56 -0000 Received: from mail1.iecc.com (64.57.183.56) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 23 Jun 2011 22:00:56 -0000 Date: 23 Jun 2011 22:00:34 -0000 Message-ID: <20110623220034.82836.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] At long last, some drafts and a charter 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, 23 Jun 2011 22:00:57 -0000 >Just as a note on DNS, be aware that there are some DNS hosts (I >won't name names, but you should fix your stuff if you know who you >are) which will lowercase a dns query, so if you're doing a dns-based >lookup which requires case sensitivity then there will be issues >depending on who is the dns provider. If you're doing a DNS-based lookup which requires case sensitivity, your application is pretty badly broken. RFC 1034 said in 1987 that upper and lower case ASCII characters are equivalent in DNS names, and that hasn't changed. R's, John From msk@cloudmark.com Thu Jun 23 18:32:01 2011 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 9499C11E807C for ; Thu, 23 Jun 2011 18:32:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.106 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.106 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.507, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xMeyhvOfwvtd for ; Thu, 23 Jun 2011 18:32:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.36]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F23C311E81B5 for ; Thu, 23 Jun 2011 18:31:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by spite.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.72]) with mapi; Thu, 23 Jun 2011 18:31:59 -0700 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "domainrep@ietf.org" Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 18:31:58 -0700 Thread-Topic: [domainrep] At long last, some drafts and a charter Thread-Index: Acwx36p/Hehyrvw/TWG74O3hepxshAALrCLA Message-ID: References: <6F77C7D3-2B81-4FED-BE8B-CB28F1C420E2@cybernothing.org> In-Reply-To: <6F77C7D3-2B81-4FED-BE8B-CB28F1C420E2@cybernothing.org> 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] At long last, some drafts and a charter 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, 24 Jun 2011 01:32:01 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: domainrep-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:domainrep-bounces@ietf.org] On B= ehalf Of J.D. Falk > Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 12:56 PM > To: domainrep@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [domainrep] At long last, some drafts and a charter >=20 > Sorry I've been silent on this of late. It's very good to see the > progress (which I've been following carefully, if quietly), and I'm > looking forward to a BoF in Quebec. >=20 > My employer, Return Path, will be interested in implementing once > something implementable is drafted. >=20 > Can I get a +1 from other lurkers? +1 here, representing both a commercial interest and an open source one. T= he commercial one will involve developers other than me, so it's really goi= ng to be two similar-but-different implementations. And (obviously) I'll be putting time into documents. -MSK From ftabsharani@port25.com Thu Jun 23 13:31:03 2011 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 3792E21F8528 for ; Thu, 23 Jun 2011 13:31:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9aYEavS9DNfq for ; Thu, 23 Jun 2011 13:31:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.port25.com (mail.port25.com [IPv6:2002:453f:951e::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70D9121F8527 for ; Thu, 23 Jun 2011 13:31:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; s=k20040525; d=port25.com; h=From:To:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; l=3113; i=ftabsharani@port25.com; bh=8RpXY7Z0i/OEknOAh8i4baPdNV8=; b=aZjjRHF/AxQ82JO9dqKBUKA7FDsDQisbv8DN+Mi8+/EXnI5qoew/F0GprjwkwKgwIrVGwM/X2IOa LVIgGEqKFiHgae3JQ72b9nw95YcQUKQcLaAAA5U8bOouqF/mPpW0A33nthwW2nju8+HbVJ7pM28q ai3s6T0qwJUlsLfSFN0= Received: by mail.port25.com (PowerMTA(TM) v4.0r1) id h0eh8a11u8ke for ; Thu, 23 Jun 2011 16:30:59 -0400 (envelope-from ) From: "Fred F. Tabsharani" To: "'J.D. Falk'" , References: <6F77C7D3-2B81-4FED-BE8B-CB28F1C420E2@cybernothing.org> In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 13:30:52 -0700 Message-ID: <01e601cc31e4$7336fdb0$59a4f910$@port25.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQFBNM2njfk/oG8SE34yiJ0Ww5YfiZXhXzoA Content-Language: en-us X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 18:32:27 -0700 Subject: Re: [domainrep] At long last, some drafts and a charter 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, 23 Jun 2011 20:31:03 -0000 +1 Fred Tabsharani port25 Solutions, Inc Vice President, Marketing O: 510.526.3733 M: 510.367.5832 T: @tabsharani =A0=A0=A0=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: domainrep-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:domainrep-bounces@ietf.org] = On > Behalf Of Michael Adkins > Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 1:22 PM > To: J.D. Falk; domainrep@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [domainrep] At long last, some drafts and a charter >=20 > +1 >=20 > On 6/23/11 12:56 PM, "J.D. Falk" = wrote: >=20 > >Sorry I've been silent on this of late. It's very good to see the > >progress (which I've been following carefully, if quietly), and I'm > >looking forward to a BoF in Quebec. > > > >My employer, Return Path, will be interested in implementing once > >something implementable is drafted. > > > >Can I get a +1 from other lurkers? > > > > > >On Jun 1, 2011, at 9:53 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > > >> Greetings, > >> > >> Although there hasn=B9t been much activity on this list in several > >>months, the ideas have certainly not died. Back then, Nathaniel > >>Borenstein posted a vision about a flexible reputation system might > >>look like, and I=B9ve managed to convert his idea into a suite of = drafts > >>that lay out a general framework, some IANA work, and then a couple = of > >>example applications that use the framework. I=B9ve also included a > >>mechanism for query and response using DNS and HTTP, and left a = blank > >>one open as well for a UDP method in case there=B9s resistance to = doing > >>a DNS-based application. > >> > >> I have a potential platform for doing both server-side and > >>client-side sample implementations of such work, though it=B9ll be a = bit > >>longer before they=B9re visible, and I=B9d like to use these drafts = as a > >>basis for doing so which is why it=B9s important to get the = community > >>discussing this stuff once again. > >> > >> I=B9ve attached the last version of the draft charter for a working > >>group to work on a general reputation framework using these drafts = as > >>a basis, and requested a BoF in Quebec City based on the previous > >>momentum and these drafts. I=B9m hoping the enthusiasm for the idea > >>isn=B9t as dead as the list has been. > >> > >> Please have a look at the drafts and this charter and provide > >>commentary. I=B9d love to see some momentum here in time for Quebec > >>City and possibly other related meetings before then. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> -MSK > >> _______________________________________________ > >> domainrep mailing list > >> domainrep@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep > > > >-- > >J.D. Falk > >the leading purveyor of industry counter-rhetoric solutions > > > >_______________________________________________ > >domainrep mailing list > >domainrep@ietf.org > >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep >=20 > _______________________________________________ > domainrep mailing list > domainrep@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep From dennis-lists@thenose.net Fri Jun 24 01:46:16 2011 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 388EC11E8089 for ; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 01:46:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id G6Q-EEdsiAbU for ; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 01:46:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.thenose.net (thenose.net [208.94.208.66]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BB9611E8087 for ; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 01:46:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=thenose.net; s=mail; x=1309509984; q=dns/txt; h=DomainKey-Signature:Received: Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:References:To; bh=ohEM5/AfX +j/IFwDxyuDWguIgqRY0Aj0/5djJoAQlPE=; b=JuAcz/IErr+Lh5JVW1BDZmUTU Pq8dwuR7PK9FICD+CDl8gX2InG/zStqW7s9wgif6cAV8LsmMoDX1shGU0yPMtnM3 xhqmgUNvSPG95UDngQOAKW3+b9wd71lPZBbuj7TyYzBQli5dVuDKsZfGD3XXbRdm p/oOEDEDbwvs7t+w4E= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=mail; d=thenose.net; c=simple; q=dns; h=from:message-id; b=YVVGOuV2ECnARdstXVE1fxn6S2N0ZtZ+F2RFzpuRooqHdwC/k0k1D9whj6FJ /A2GdwZpP5ZRxRLU1fW9Fb4P0vjNV10SgkoFLz18BUrSvweiV9KLrCmxA OPnAGIetoRZTEHejdkaIu+saoQ8tiq5Ip+xh1BXpUNNgeHnCjNy95A=; X-MDAV-Processed: mail.thenose.net, Fri, 24 Jun 2011 03:46:24 -0500 Received: from [10.1.1.181] by thenose.net (Cipher TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (MDaemon PRO v12.0.3) with ESMTP id md50000491443.msg for ; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 03:46:22 -0500 X-Spam-Processed: mail.thenose.net, Fri, 24 Jun 2011 03:46:22 -0500 (not processed: message from trusted or authenticated source) X-Authenticated-Sender: dennis@thenose.net X-MDRemoteIP: 94.175.239.226 X-Return-Path: dennis-lists@thenose.net X-Envelope-From: dennis-lists@thenose.net X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: domainrep@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: Dennis Dayman In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 09:46:08 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <93C3860F-0CA9-4025-B02A-1B14FDCC7B00@thenose.net> References: To: "J.D. Falk" , "domainrep@ietf.org" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Subject: Re: [domainrep] At long last, some drafts and a charter 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, 24 Jun 2011 08:46:16 -0000 +1 -Dennis On Jun 23, 2011, at 9:22 PM, Michael Adkins wrote: > +1 >=20 > On 6/23/11 12:56 PM, "J.D. Falk" = wrote: >=20 >> Sorry I've been silent on this of late. It's very good to see the >> progress (which I've been following carefully, if quietly), and I'm >> looking forward to a BoF in Quebec. >>=20 >> My employer, Return Path, will be interested in implementing once >> something implementable is drafted. >>=20 >> Can I get a +1 from other lurkers? >>=20 >>=20 >> On Jun 1, 2011, at 9:53 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >>=20 >>> Greetings, >>>=20 >>> Although there hasn=B9t been much activity on this list in several >>> months, the ideas have certainly not died. Back then, Nathaniel >>> Borenstein posted a vision about a flexible reputation system might = look >>> like, and I=B9ve managed to convert his idea into a suite of drafts = that >>> lay out a general framework, some IANA work, and then a couple of >>> example applications that use the framework. I=B9ve also included a >>> mechanism for query and response using DNS and HTTP, and left a = blank >>> one open as well for a UDP method in case there=B9s resistance to = doing a >>> DNS-based application. >>>=20 >>> I have a potential platform for doing both server-side and = client-side >>> sample implementations of such work, though it=B9ll be a bit longer = before >>> they=B9re visible, and I=B9d like to use these drafts as a basis for = doing >>> so which is why it=B9s important to get the community discussing = this >>> stuff once again. >>>=20 >>> I=B9ve attached the last version of the draft charter for a working = group >>> to work on a general reputation framework using these drafts as a = basis, >>> and requested a BoF in Quebec City based on the previous momentum = and >>> these drafts. I=B9m hoping the enthusiasm for the idea isn=B9t as = dead as >>> the list has been. >>>=20 >>> Please have a look at the drafts and this charter and provide >>> commentary. I=B9d love to see some momentum here in time for Quebec = City >>> and possibly other related meetings before then. >>>=20 >>> Thanks, >>> -MSK >>> _______________________________________________ >>> domainrep mailing list >>> domainrep@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep >>=20 >> -- >> J.D. Falk >> the leading purveyor of industry counter-rhetoric solutions >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> domainrep mailing list >> domainrep@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep >=20 > _______________________________________________ > domainrep mailing list > domainrep@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep >=20 From Adam_Wosotowsky@mcafee.com Fri Jun 24 08:47:12 2011 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 B1E5B11E810A for ; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 08:47:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 76W8MOnvav0D for ; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 08:47:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dalsmrelay2.nai.com (dalsmrelay2.nai.com [205.227.136.216]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFD6A11E80F7 for ; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 08:47:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from (unknown [10.64.5.52]) by dalsmrelay2.nai.com with smtp id 6bdf_df14_3737e214_9e79_11e0_8703_00219b929abd; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 10:47:07 -0500 Received: from AMERDALEXMB1.corp.nai.org ([fe80::b534:4a0d:1289:2d2d]) by DALEXHT2.corp.nai.org ([::1]) with mapi; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 10:45:34 -0500 From: To: , Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 10:45:32 -0500 Thread-Topic: [domainrep] At long last, some drafts and a charter Thread-Index: Acwx8QqhGKFCZ1FNQo2CVQ68D3WcmAAkf6VA Message-ID: References: <20110623220034.82836.qmail@joyce.lan> In-Reply-To: <20110623220034.82836.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] At long last, some drafts and a charter 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, 24 Jun 2011 15:47:12 -0000 DQo+IC0tLS0tT3JpZ2luYWwgTWVzc2FnZS0tLS0tDQo+IEZyb206IEpvaG4gTGV2aW5lIFttYWls dG86am9obmxAaWVjYy5jb21dDQo+IFN1YmplY3Q6IFJlOiBbZG9tYWlucmVwXSBBdCBsb25nIGxh c3QsIHNvbWUgZHJhZnRzIGFuZCBhIGNoYXJ0ZXINCj4gDQo+IElmIHlvdSdyZSBkb2luZyBhIERO Uy1iYXNlZCBsb29rdXAgd2hpY2ggcmVxdWlyZXMgY2FzZSBzZW5zaXRpdml0eSwNCj4geW91ciBh cHBsaWNhdGlvbiBpcyBwcmV0dHkgYmFkbHkgYnJva2VuLiAgUkZDIDEwMzQgc2FpZCBpbiAxOTg3 IHRoYXQNCj4gdXBwZXIgYW5kIGxvd2VyIGNhc2UgQVNDSUkgY2hhcmFjdGVycyBhcmUgZXF1aXZh bGVudCBpbiBETlMgbmFtZXMsIGFuZA0KPiB0aGF0IGhhc24ndCBjaGFuZ2VkLg0KPiANCg0KV2Un cmUgbm90LCB3ZSd2ZSBtb3ZlZCBsb25nIHBhc3QgdGhhdCwgYnV0IHRoZSBsYWNrIG9mIGNhc2Ug c2Vuc2l0aXZpdHkgaW4gRE5TIHJlZHVjZXMgdGhlIGFtb3VudCBvZiB1bmlxdWVuZXNzIHRoYXQg eW91IGNhbiBmaXQgaW50byBhIHNpbmdsZSBxdWVyeSwgd2hpY2ggc2hvdWxkIGJlIGEgY29uY2Vy bi4gIElmIHRoaXMgaXNzdWUgaGFzIGFscmVhZHkgYmVlbiByYWlzZWQgdGhlbiBJIGFwb2xvZ2l6 ZSBmb3IgYnJpbmdpbmcgaXQgdXAuICBTZWUgcmZjNDM0MyBmb3IgYWRkaXRpb25hbCBjbGFyaWZp Y2F0aW9uIHJlZ2FyZGluZyB0aGUgaGFuZGxpbmcgb2YgY2FzZS4gDQoNCi0tYWRhbQ0KDQo= From bmcdowell@paypal-inc.com Fri Jun 24 08:52:47 2011 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 03DD221F848B for ; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 08:52:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.117 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.117 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_RFC_BOGUSMX=1.482, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hXdAvYA4JchW for ; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 08:52:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from den-mipot-001.corp.ebay.com (den-mipot-001.corp.ebay.com [216.113.175.152]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F398321F844A for ; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 08:52:45 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: s=ppinc; d=paypal-inc.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=X-EBay-Corp:X-IronPort-AV:Received:Received:Received: From:To:CC:Date:Subject:Thread-Topic:Thread-Index: Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To:Accept-Language: Content-Language:X-MS-Has-Attach:X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: MIME-Version:Return-Path:X-EMS-Proccessed:X-EMS-STAMP: X-CFilter; b=vSIbcualhZXuam2FCBxK8m4hC1iEHh8eZNPFzcu5jgicMiopgwebkx7A mg8iJsLijb2oyuix3NQUx/WavaxNOXAaOIosNwy9bJOVDg7pkWI6NFMXP T7VmTmlVqhUMhj7; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=paypal-inc.com; i=bmcdowell@paypal-inc.com; q=dns/txt; s=ppinc; t=1308930766; x=1340466766; h=from:to:cc:date:subject:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=Ujb0f6vijK6i45XBYK84mUSgyL+fJ1o0GjxFZJDm7pM=; b=aWQPIFkVcNJawq7gN77Cy4tHaHWfyKTMuUyPVgLnEZffuIpENlktfAcg MrzTL0AKvwrv1i/K+wIpdvql+rWxL2AkQnXfNyOMttSqsHyOGj1xy7/ik zIFyK6hNskwGGfx; X-EBay-Corp: Yes X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,419,1304319600"; d="scan'208";a="2499949" Received: from den-vtenf-001.corp.ebay.com (HELO DEN-MEXHT-002.corp.ebay.com) ([10.101.112.212]) by den-mipot-001.corp.ebay.com with ESMTP; 24 Jun 2011 08:52:45 -0700 Received: from DEN-MEXHT-004.corp.ebay.com (10.241.17.60) by DEN-MEXHT-002.corp.ebay.com (10.241.17.53) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.137.0; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 09:52:45 -0600 Received: from DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com ([10.241.16.225]) by DEN-MEXHT-004.corp.ebay.com ([10.241.17.60]) with mapi; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 09:52:45 -0600 From: "McDowell, Brett" To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 09:52:43 -0600 Thread-Topic: [domainrep] At long last, some drafts and a charter Thread-Index: AcwyhsG9gip8FlyPRwqNQYO/P9srHA== Message-ID: References: <6F77C7D3-2B81-4FED-BE8B-CB28F1C420E2@cybernothing.org> In-Reply-To: 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 X-EMS-Proccessed: 10SqDH0iR7ekR7SRpKqm5A== X-EMS-STAMP: 3Sx6394kR8D4JfgMdUtLHw== X-CFilter: Scanned Cc: "domainrep@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [domainrep] At long last, some drafts and a charter 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, 24 Jun 2011 15:52:47 -0000 This is redundant to my previous statement on the list, but maybe it's usef= ul to have one thread where we collect all the interest in moving this effo= rt forward... +1 On Jun 23, 2011, at 9:31 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: domainrep-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:domainrep-bounces@ietf.org] On = Behalf Of J.D. Falk >> Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 12:56 PM >> To: domainrep@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [domainrep] At long last, some drafts and a charter >>=20 >> Sorry I've been silent on this of late. It's very good to see the >> progress (which I've been following carefully, if quietly), and I'm >> looking forward to a BoF in Quebec. >>=20 >> My employer, Return Path, will be interested in implementing once >> something implementable is drafted. >>=20 >> Can I get a +1 from other lurkers? >=20 > +1 here, representing both a commercial interest and an open source one. = The commercial one will involve developers other than me, so it's really g= oing to be two similar-but-different implementations. >=20 > And (obviously) I'll be putting time into documents. >=20 > -MSK > _______________________________________________ > domainrep mailing list > domainrep@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep From ajs@anvilwalrusden.com Fri Jun 24 09:18:12 2011 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 5C17611E809B for ; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 09:18:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.572 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.572 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.027, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Qrke8ofN36A8 for ; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 09:18:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A30DC11E8096 for ; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 09:18:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shinkuro.com (69-196-144-230.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D053D1ECB41D for ; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 16:18:08 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 12:18:00 -0400 From: Andrew Sullivan To: domainrep@ietf.org Message-ID: <20110624161759.GA97941@shinkuro.com> References: <20110623220034.82836.qmail@joyce.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: Re: [domainrep] At long last, some drafts and a charter 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, 24 Jun 2011 16:18:12 -0000 On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 10:45:32AM -0500, Adam_Wosotowsky@McAfee.com wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: John Levine [mailto:johnl@iecc.com] > > Subject: Re: [domainrep] At long last, some drafts and a charter > > > > If you're doing a DNS-based lookup which requires case sensitivity, > > your application is pretty badly broken. RFC 1034 said in 1987 that > > upper and lower case ASCII characters are equivalent in DNS names, and > > that hasn't changed. > > > > We're not, we've moved long past that, but the lack of case > sensitivity in DNS reduces the amount of uniqueness that you can fit > into a single query, which should be a concern. If this issue has > already been raised then I apologize for bringing it up. See > rfc4343 for additional clarification regarding the handling of case. Careful here. First, RFCs 1034 and 1035 do not say exactly that upper and lower case ASCII characters are equivalent. DNS is supposed to be case-preserving but case-insensitive. (In my humble opinion, this is one of the most broken parts of the DNS, but never mind that.) Second, because of label compression, you have no guarantees of the case you're going to get back anyway. The following labels all match one another: eXaMpLe, example, EXAMPLE. But label compression in many implementations will store a pointer to the first instance of the label, which can mean that while you get one value back, it might not be the one you expect; and the case-preservation isn't quite what you might expect it to be, because caches are going to get a compressed label to store. In at least one case I observed, the label compression included a pointer back to the label in the (echoed) question section in the response. This meant that the labels you saw (for compressible RRTYPEs) were exactly the ones you sent. AFAIK this is changed, and I don't know of any shipping systems that do it this way, but I'm not actually sure it was wrong under the protocol anyway. There has been a suggestion to use case sensitivity as a kind of extra security measure: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vixie-dnsext-dns0x20-00. This was controversial, but at least one vendor has code shipping that does this. Finally, I guess it goes without saying that we're taking about (in IDNA-speak) A-labels and not U-labels. The latter aren't allowed to have upper case characters, period. A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com From R.E.Sonneveld@sonnection.nl Sat Jun 25 01:32:09 2011 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 666639E8007 for ; Sat, 25 Jun 2011 01:32:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.348 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.348 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.749, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ldSKMTPxK5q9 for ; Sat, 25 Jun 2011 01:32:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx10.mailtransaction.com (mx11.mailtransaction.com [88.198.59.230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B94999E8005 for ; Sat, 25 Jun 2011 01:32:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from process-dkim-sign-daemon.hydrogen.mailtransaction.com by hydrogen.mailtransaction.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Exchange Server 7u4-18.01 64bit (built Jul 15 2010)) id <0LNC00L007PH2500@hydrogen.mailtransaction.com>; Sat, 25 Jun 2011 10:32:05 +0200 (CEST) Received: from lion.sonnection.nl (lion.sonnection.nl [80.127.135.138]) by hydrogen.mailtransaction.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Exchange Server 7u4-18.01 64bit (built Jul 15 2010)) with ESMTP id <0LNC002CP7PHH100@hydrogen.mailtransaction.com>; Sat, 25 Jun 2011 10:32:05 +0200 (CEST) MIME-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII; format=flowed Received: from a80-127-135-139.adsl.xs4all.nl (a80-127-135-139.adsl.xs4all.nl [80.127.135.139]) by lion.sonnection.nl (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7.3-11.01 32bit (built Sep 1 2009)) with ESMTPA id <0LNC008237PG7O00@lion.sonnection.nl> for domainrep@ietf.org; Sat, 25 Jun 2011 10:32:04 +0200 (CEST) Message-id: <4E059DA1.2030008@sonnection.nl> Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2011 10:34:41 +0200 From: "Rolf E. Sonneveld" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.11 To: "domainrep@ietf.org" References: <6F77C7D3-2B81-4FED-BE8B-CB28F1C420E2@cybernothing.org> In-reply-to: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=sonnection.nl; s=2009; t=1308990725; bh=i/RUqCgckR46li7eL0GqddT0G2Dbba8pHsfr+qKC4T0=; h=MIME-version:Content-transfer-encoding:Content-type:Message-id: Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-reply-to; b=RB4c1LAo8hKn91D9BI2SwlSgrn0koe8TRPcyYl6ZrkesWNwHVbb7h1Z30iTvAPgLP bXxXFpVmPjruINdUIHnApnP8+8F/SE8OFSbvGX8d3uYMaCt2coEpxAQuyJKSwsUoq0 4trqgyv9dOc4yE+bLdg4GqiwSfX3Q2JwsNzXaiXc= X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.1.3 hydrogen.mailtransaction.com 0LNC00L007PH2500 Subject: Re: [domainrep] At long last, some drafts and a charter 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: Sat, 25 Jun 2011 08:32:09 -0000 On 6/24/11 5:52 PM, McDowell, Brett wrote: > This is redundant to my previous statement on the list, but maybe it's useful to have one thread where we collect all the interest in moving this effort forward... +1 +1 /rolf From ahp@hilander.com Sat Jun 25 15:02:30 2011 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 96F9E11E8125 for ; Sat, 25 Jun 2011 15:02:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.203 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.203 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id z3w0gTJ0DhlO for ; Sat, 25 Jun 2011 15:02:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ramirez.hilander.com (ramirez.hilander.com [199.233.217.41]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1439611E8123 for ; Sat, 25 Jun 2011 15:02:30 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: q=dns; a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; s=s1024-dk; d=hilander.com; h=DKIM-Signature:Authentication-Results:Received-SPF:X-Commtouch-RefID:X-Commtouch-Virus-Threat:X-Commtouch-Class:Received:Subject:From:Content-Type:X-Mailer:Message-Id:Date:To:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Mime-Version; b=VKu+10FSBeLDmn48SgO0TCzqRnGe5MqzlKcgD0mjA85oIg+hYx3DqzWQnDWrsj39 qS7L8mUIEbyE7thMRqjhpUSe9ikBUCc6bs0eHB89kVyMquIQSUIAyeIt3ifF62yA YPTiglHwa5PMGtruBzFW7MK4wqUcXj1gcvbnqUd3pe8= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; d=hilander.com; s=s1024; c=relaxed/simple; q=dns/txt; i=@hilander.com; t=1309040189; l=161; h=From:Subject:Date; bh=HVJVZd/MonEy/31JGZ6MlxbePY8=; b=o208y3ugm5E4Tz96ddor+LBsiPZOr+Y/30mubSQaUmKJ0+rjFpfyT6aEkDku4HcJ 4OJWbMJyS5Sed/e7gClHrDpKA5eFzeHPm0SmBjOduLSumNoHpr0lGEq1L1pxTTh2 aC6FwhVxKUWHAoR9gxzWGcd8eOxp5UHB30wMbYivBPs=; Authentication-Results: ramirez.hilander.com smtp.mail=ahp@hilander.com; spf=unknown; sender-id=neutral Authentication-Results: ramirez.hilander.com header.from=ahp@hilander.com; sender-id=neutral Authentication-Results: ramirez.hilander.com smtp.user=chuckie; auth=pass (CRAM-MD5) Received-SPF: error (ramirez.hilander.com: 166.205.143.105 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of hilander.com X-Commtouch-RefID: str=0001.0A090206.4E065AF6.0007,ss=1,fgs=0 X-Commtouch-Virus-Threat: Unknown X-Commtouch-Class: Unknown Received: from [166.205.143.105] ([166.205.143.105:16287] helo=[10.0.220.249]) by ramirez.hilander.com (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 2.2.1.22 r(20033M)) with ESMTPSA (cipher=none) id 96/53-29249-C3E560E4; Sat, 25 Jun 2011 16:16:29 -0600 From: "Alec H. Peterson" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: iPad Mail (8J3) Message-Id: <4F550FC1-CC08-4B57-A2AF-7C2E16A55646@hilander.com> Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2011 15:02:23 -0700 To: "domainrep@ietf.org" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPad Mail 8J3) Subject: [domainrep] Expression of support for domain reputation list 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: Sat, 25 Jun 2011 22:03:31 -0000 Hi, I feel having a domain reputation list/working group within the IETF would b= e very useful, and if created I intend to materially participate. Alec From sm@resistor.net Sun Jun 26 01:53:08 2011 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 9BE9B21F8499 for ; Sun, 26 Jun 2011 01:53:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.539 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.539 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.060, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FtCtGSZXuOfl for ; Sun, 26 Jun 2011 01:53:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22A8321F8497 for ; Sun, 26 Jun 2011 01:53:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from subman.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.4/8.14.5.Beta0) with ESMTP id p5Q8qsmY015031 for ; Sun, 26 Jun 2011 01:52:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1309078381; bh=koRUXWIMlGVW2oK/cN8Wkb9w9Ax0bGp+Mi0ph/Smyug=; h=Message-Id:X-Mailer:Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=jjOZGkqI1HYoboC7ACup9xq2QKB1AkGUbAnMRw5qAzZIi5lyGGWS7OINJV1Jbyl7s 6GUY3vKyc39oJh5s2XsovAqlKNpltp9g7KQLCpN34um5xGKERBxg/2LBzUll6tvMZO NQAPjAkCGEXezQ0a+V9VZGNyX5QEstVL9EtvLXTE= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1309078381; bh=koRUXWIMlGVW2oK/cN8Wkb9w9Ax0bGp+Mi0ph/Smyug=; h=Message-Id:X-Mailer:Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=pYMMeVPEqmMb/59OTvkyNBaij7lmTmWGOShe+jwz1NkW6Khx67NE0FkTxwdJcpgRh Jhl047OrkVY7XqxJZPtYOH1CuL6fIBSPFnvkBb6oHLfcWhEDFHhsLQ6Sk1NpZueROA cvvPod4nXLd8NnSzNvD8TEnTK+HOqBp24+9EPaAg= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20110626012440.033417d8@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 01:38:07 -0700 To: domainrep@ietf.org From: SM In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: Re: [domainrep] At long last, some drafts and a charter 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: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 08:53:08 -0000 Hi Murray, At 07:37 02-06-2011, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >Ah yes, the drafts. In all my excitement I forgot to post their >various names. They are: I'll comment after I have read all the I-Ds. I'm interested in the open source implementation of the specifications. I'll likely follow the BoF over XMPP. Regards, -sm From ajs@anvilwalrusden.com Mon Jun 27 13:04:44 2011 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 3170D11E8119 for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 13:04:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RdcdlAuYsc9a for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 13:04:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B2AD11E810B for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 13:04:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shinkuro.com (69-196-144-230.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 781021ECB41C for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 20:04:37 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 16:04:33 -0400 From: Andrew Sullivan To: domainrep@ietf.org Message-ID: <20110627200432.GS97941@shinkuro.com> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: [domainrep] Support for charter 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, 27 Jun 2011 20:04:44 -0000 Dear colleagues, I thought it might be important to note for the record that I find this work interesting and important. I looked at the proposed charter, and I think it's reasonable. I also think the drafts are a good start. I hereby commit in public to doing reviews (and encourage the authors, therefore, to poke me when I fail to make good on this). A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com From dotis@mail-abuse.org Tue Jun 28 11:07:51 2011 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 2CE3311E814A for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 11:07:51 -0700 (PDT) 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=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3rw7PKfJIWJd for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 11:07:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SJDC-SDIRelay3.sdi.trendmicro.com (sjdc-sdirelay3.sdi.trendmicro.com [150.70.69.27]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E401111E8141 for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 11:07:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from harry.mail-abuse.org (harry.mail-abuse.org [168.61.5.27]) by SJDC-SDIRelay3.sdi.trendmicro.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F24DF6E02BB for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 18:07:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from US-DOUGO-MAC.local (gateway1.sjc.mail-abuse.org [168.61.5.81]) by harry.mail-abuse.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E255A9443B for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 18:07:46 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4E0A1872.4000701@mail-abuse.org> Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 11:07:46 -0700 From: Douglas Otis User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Thunderbird/3.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: domainrep@ietf.org References: <20110623220034.82836.qmail@joyce.lan> <20110624161759.GA97941@shinkuro.com> In-Reply-To: <20110624161759.GA97941@shinkuro.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [domainrep] At long last, some drafts and a charter 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, 28 Jun 2011 18:07:51 -0000 On 6/24/11 9:18 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > Finally, I guess it goes without saying that we're taking about (in > IDNA-speak) A-labels and not U-labels. The latter aren't allowed to > have upper case characters, period. This restriction applies to IDNA-conforming applications such as SMTP or HTTP. DNS itself doesn't care. Its hard to say what limits a registrar or the zone owner might impose on label use right? -Doug From ajs@anvilwalrusden.com Tue Jun 28 11:16:46 2011 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 17BBD11E8120 for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 11:16:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id K8SkkDm0mwpb for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 11:16:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 970DB11E811D for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 11:16:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shinkuro.com (69-196-144-230.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5FF831ECB420 for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 18:16:41 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 14:16:41 -0400 From: Andrew Sullivan To: domainrep@ietf.org Message-ID: <20110628181640.GK4642@shinkuro.com> References: <20110623220034.82836.qmail@joyce.lan> <20110624161759.GA97941@shinkuro.com> <4E0A1872.4000701@mail-abuse.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4E0A1872.4000701@mail-abuse.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: Re: [domainrep] At long last, some drafts and a charter 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, 28 Jun 2011 18:16:46 -0000 On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 11:07:46AM -0700, Douglas Otis wrote: > On 6/24/11 9:18 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > >Finally, I guess it goes without saying that we're taking about (in > >IDNA-speak) A-labels and not U-labels. The latter aren't allowed to > >have upper case characters, period. > This restriction applies to IDNA-conforming applications such as > SMTP or HTTP. DNS itself doesn't care. Its hard to say what limits > a registrar or the zone owner might impose on label use right? U-labels are not allowed to have upper case characters, period, and things in the DNS are by definition not U-labels, because U-labels get converted to A-labels when they're put in the DNS. The fact that you could put UTF-8 directly into a label in your DNS server is irrelevant: it's still not a U-label. So, to be stricter, the restriction doesn't apply to DNS because the way DNS works with IDNA is using A-labels; U-labels are defined in an IDNA context. If you are serving something that is not an A-label (and if it's an A-label it's guaranteed not to convert to an upper-case U-label), then of course IDNA has nothing to say abotu what your DNS policies are. If you _are_ purporting to serve A-labels, then IDNA does indeed have plenty to say about what limits (apart from your local policy) need to be on what you register. See section 4 of RFC 5891. Note that many of us think that the "A-label only" form in 4.2.1 is a bad idea. A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com From msk@cloudmark.com Thu Jun 30 12:36:37 2011 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 ACED411E826C for ; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 12:36:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.222 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.222 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.624, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ufZTD4EFdcVT for ; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 12:36:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.36]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A2EE11E8269 for ; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 12:36:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by spite.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.72]) with mapi; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 12:36:28 -0700 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "domainrep@ietf.org" Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 12:36:27 -0700 Thread-Topic: Preliminary agenda, BoF scheduled Thread-Index: Acw3XQEGU8yRSCCMRZ2ocZH0NlVIBw== 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_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F134EBC4B11EXCHC2corpclo_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [domainrep] Preliminary agenda, BoF scheduled 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, 30 Jun 2011 19:36:37 -0000 --_000_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F134EBC4B11EXCHC2corpclo_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The preliminary agenda for IETF 81 has been posted, and we have a BoF sched= uled for Monday afternoon. If you won't be there in person then I would en= courage you to be in the jabber room (details will be posted later) so we c= an gauge interest and seek some commitments for who's willing to work on wh= at and bang out a potential charter. Thanks go out to those who've posted already making participation commitmen= ts. See you in Quebec City! -MSK --_000_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F134EBC4B11EXCHC2corpclo_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

The preliminary = agenda for IETF 81 has been posted, and we have a BoF scheduled for Monday = afternoon.  If you won’t be there in person then I would encoura= ge you to be in the jabber room (details will be posted later) so we can ga= uge interest and seek some commitments for who’s willing to work on w= hat and bang out a potential charter.

 

Thanks go out to those who’ve= posted already making participation commitments.  See you in Quebec C= ity!

 

-MSK

= --_000_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F134EBC4B11EXCHC2corpclo_--