From dileepajayakody@gmail.com Mon Jan 20 23:03:36 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 673201A02A3 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 23:03:36 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.1 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZzrYG82InPT9 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 23:03:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qe0-x230.google.com (mail-qe0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c02::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8AA31A005A for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 23:03:34 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qe0-f48.google.com with SMTP id b4so2167866qen.35 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 23:03:34 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=lhTm3QBmIq21BfIUjB1IoU+3/egHWrvAJu3DN/N3tNA=; b=a0u5mmThPd6BpddrsYhrpopuCMb9c9Tk/L0tpRvu8/gs3Y2FtWO5DSTrWmMySCAOtu 71EMB7tqeg96d/YqntHw51X+rnPZFeaFMx3J08qOW/BP/RFnSZ9Be72UtohTBkyr49q/ ZgBgcNT32nZJef3b5oSkmgXRHM6brqBNBHfX9DefJykZkeBy+zAQReoSrCHZSpJFXNxz ddVetKSW2mLLP4ecEtj2SgMGX0AFPV92QbcW/yFnuAfqqyhUQP+jeoJHcVgigS9UkChN 9FmbD3b1cFxpFC0qU8SZXeqg1Agf4gB+kU9Q8fEogogJNg43ipRl2kvvgEh4nWebgdxp uCgA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.224.135.8 with SMTP id l8mr404057qat.67.1390287814736; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 23:03:34 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.224.111.148 with HTTP; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 23:03:34 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 12:33:34 +0530 Message-ID: From: Dileepa Jayakody To: domainrep@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b67355055405e04f0759b68 Subject: [domainrep] Research on Reputation Analysis in Email Systems X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 07:03:36 -0000 --047d7b67355055405e04f0759b68 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi All, I'm Dileepa Jayakody, a Sri Lankan masters research student doing research on "Reputation Analysis in Email Systems". I went through the Repute RFCs (rfc7070,7071,7072,7073) and I find them highly interesting and relevant to my field of study. Let me first give you an overview of my project. I'm aiming to develop an email reputation application platform as an API to retrieve reputation of emails computed based on the email meta-data (headers) and content (subject and body). I feel that in order to analyse the relevance and reputation of a particular email it's necessary to compute both the identity and the content. In fact in some spam filter applications both these techniques are used to filter incoming spams. I think spam-filtering is just one application of email reputation and there is so much potential to other application contexts such as user-profiling, inbox prioritizing, automatic labeling etc. As a demo-application of my research I'm aiming to develop a priority inbox by considering email's reputation score computed based on the people involved (identity), topics discussed, actions required and sentiments. In the repute working-group, I see that the focus is mainly on identity-based reputation architecture with reference to existing architectures like DKIM, SPF etc. I would like to know if you are also interested in defining guidelines,techniques to process email content to retrieve reputation data from email content. I would also appreciate any pointers to sample applications or PoCs implemented based on the reputation architecture discussed in this working group. I highly appreciate any suggestions, pointers to my research and wish to continue discussing my findings, methodologies with this working group if you allow me to. Looking forward to your ideas. Thanks, Dileepa --047d7b67355055405e04f0759b68 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi All,

I'm Dileepa Jayakody, a Sri= Lankan masters research student doing research on "Reputation Analysi= s in Email Systems".
I went through the Repute RFCs (rfc7070= ,7071,7072,7073) and I find them highly interesting and relevant to my fiel= d of study.

Let me first give you an overview of my project.=A0
I'm aiming to develop an email reputation application platform a= s an API to retrieve reputation of emails computed based on the email meta-= data (headers) and content (subject and body). I feel that in order to anal= yse the relevance and reputation of a particular email it's necessary t= o compute both the identity and the content. =A0In fact in some spam filter= applications both these techniques are used to filter incoming spams. I th= ink spam-filtering is just one application of email reputation and there is= so much potential to other application contexts such as user-profiling, in= box prioritizing, automatic labeling etc. As a demo-application of my resea= rch I'm aiming to develop a priority inbox by considering email's r= eputation score computed based on the people involved (identity), topics di= scussed, actions required and sentiments.=A0
=A0 =A0
In the repute working-group, I see that the focus is= mainly on identity-based reputation architecture with reference to existin= g architectures like DKIM, SPF etc. =A0I would like to know if you are also= interested in defining guidelines,techniques to process email content to r= etrieve reputation data from email content. I would also appreciate any poi= nters to sample applications or PoCs implemented based on the reputation ar= chitecture discussed in this working group.=A0

I highly appreciate any suggestions, pointers to my res= earch and wish to continue discussing my findings, methodologies with this = working group if you allow me to.

Looking forward = to your ideas.

Thanks,
Dileepa
--047d7b67355055405e04f0759b68--