From presnick@qualcomm.com  Tue Apr  3 11:08:22 2012
Return-Path: <presnick@qualcomm.com>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E05D11E80CE for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue,  3 Apr 2012 11:08:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wkxXot9m3czl for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue,  3 Apr 2012 11:08:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wolverine02.qualcomm.com (wolverine02.qualcomm.com [199.106.114.251]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C9D911E8083 for <marf@ietf.org>; Tue,  3 Apr 2012 11:08:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qualcomm.com; i=presnick@qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1333476491; x=1365012491; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc: subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:x-originating-ip; z=Message-ID:=20<4F7B3C86.8030200@qualcomm.com>|Date:=20Tu e,=203=20Apr=202012=2013:08:06=20-0500|From:=20Pete=20Res nick=20<presnick@qualcomm.com>|User-Agent:=20Mozilla/5.0 =20(Macintosh=3B=20U=3B=20Intel=20Mac=20OS=20X=2010.6=3B =20en-US=3B=20rv:1.9.1.9)=20Gecko/20100630=20Eudora/3.0.4 |MIME-Version:=201.0|To:=20"Murray=20S.=20Kucherawy"=20<m sk@cloudmark.com>|CC:=20"marf@ietf.org"=20<marf@ietf.org> |Subject:=20Re:=20[marf]=20I-D=20Action:=20draft-ietf-mar f-as-12.txt|References:=20<20120330094043.29232.83839.idt racker@ietfa.amsl.com>=20<9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392 80C27AD@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>|In-Reply-To:=20<9 452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C27AD@exch-mbx901.corp.cl oudmark.com>|Content-Type:=20text/plain=3B=20charset=3D"I SO-8859-1"=3B=20format=3Dflowed |Content-Transfer-Encoding:=207bit|X-Originating-IP:=20[1 72.30.48.1]; bh=lGYssToda99dIFK8Rhwpqx8YIYKzMdfS1uoDqmoUFo4=; b=ytpT5BPZE1zjniviA4DkI9ANM0yI0y0XRvJOlvAAU8WRmtM5MZcWeC6t NxOLXEsPpYQG6p+o+cn0Qc30NdKuSnPfG+Tp9a4zAFtZpZJ9ek5vPp5bV l9ylwjLK6wiR/cDo4tJIqIHCadsLBCqmChJ5mH+Iw4jgi1UYedlM1yx8I 8=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6669"; a="176220993"
Received: from ironmsg03-r.qualcomm.com ([172.30.46.17]) by wolverine02.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 03 Apr 2012 11:08:10 -0700
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,364,1330934400"; d="scan'208";a="234148159"
Received: from nasanexhc04.na.qualcomm.com ([172.30.48.17]) by Ironmsg03-R.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 03 Apr 2012 11:08:10 -0700
Received: from resnick2.qualcomm.com (172.30.48.1) by qcmail1.qualcomm.com (172.30.48.17) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.283.3; Tue, 3 Apr 2012 11:08:09 -0700
Message-ID: <4F7B3C86.8030200@qualcomm.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 13:08:06 -0500
From: Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100630 Eudora/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
References: <20120330094043.29232.83839.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C27AD@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
In-Reply-To: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C27AD@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: [172.30.48.1]
Cc: "marf@ietf.org" <marf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [marf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-marf-as-12.txt
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2012 18:08:22 -0000

On 3/30/12 4:49 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:

> Addresses AD feedback about use of normative language.
>    

Finally back in the land of the living...

I did a thorough review and I still have a bunch of concerns. As always, 
you can tell me I'm full of crap, but some of these are places where I 
find the text incomprehensible, and I suspect other ADs will have 
similar problems. Please have a look:

4.3.1.
       The reports SHOULD use "Feedback-Type: abuse", but can use other
        types as appropriate to the nature of the abuse being reported.
        However, the Mailbox Provider generating the reports needs to
        understand that the operator receiving the reports might not
        treat different feedback types any differently.

How about instead: "The reports SHOULD use "Feedback-Type: abuse" for 
its type. Although a Mailbox Provider generating the reports can use 
other types appropriate to the nature of the abuse being reported, the 
operator receiving the reports might not treat different feedback types 
differently." The "needs to understand" construction confused me as it 
didn't seem like something actionable.

5.1.1.
        At the time this document is being written, for the use cases
        described here, mail operators need to proactively request a
        stream of ARF reports from Mailbox Providers.  Recommendations
        for preparing to make that request are discussed in Section 4.1
        of [RFC6449].

Strike "At the time this document is being written, for the use cases 
described here". It seems utterly obvious. If you write a new document 
with new use cases, you can change the instruction. Also, why "need to" 
instead of "MUST"?

    2.  Furthermore, this document assumes that mail operators exchange
        abuse reports formatted per ARF [RFC5965] as email messages
        [RFC5322] over SMTP [RFC5321].  These and other types of email
        messages that can be received are discussed in Section 4.2 of
        [RFC6449].

Ugh. I preferred your earlier attempt on the list or Barry's wording 
much better. I don't really care what the "document assumes". I say go 
with "Operators MUST be able to accept...".

    3.  Mail operators need to consider the idea of automating report
        processing.  Discussion of this can be found in Section 4.4 of
        [RFC6449].

I don't really understand what that means and I don't see how it is 
actionable. What do you want mail operators to do?

5.2.1.
        An automated report processing system MUST accept all Feedback-
        Types defined in [RFC5965] or extensions to it.  However, report
        receivers cannot assume that Mailbox Providers will make use of
        any Feedback-Type other than "abuse", except with prior specific
        knowledge.  Additional analysis might be required to separate
        different types of abuse reports after receipt.

The first sentence is fine. After that, I suggest, "However, Mailbox 
Providers may only make use of the "abuse" Feedback-Type. Therefore 
report receivers might be required to do additional analysis to separate 
different types of abuse reports after receipt if they do not have prior 
specific knowledge of the sender of the report."

    2.  Implementers SHOULD NOT expect all Mailbox Providers to include
        the same optional fields.

How about, "Implementers MUST accept different combinations of optional 
fields since Mailbox Providers might not include the same ones."?

    3.  Reports may have been subjected to redaction of user-identifiable
        data as described in [I-D.IETF-MARF-REDACTION].  That document
        also discusses the handling of such reports.  This technique is
        also discussed in Section 4.4 of [RFC6449].

"Report receivers MUST/SHOULD accept reports that have been subject to 
redaction". Is that what you mean?

5.3.1
        Actions that mail operators might take upon receiving a report
        (or multiple reports) are discussed in Section 4.3 of [RFC6449].

Completely stylistic: "Section 4.3 of [RFC6449] discusses actions..."

6.1.1
        A report generator MUST provide a way for a report recipient to
        request no further reports be sent to that address and MAY
        provide a way for recipients to change the address(es) to which
        reports about them are sent.  Details of such mechanisms are
        outside of the scope of [RFC5965], [RFC6449], and this document.

So, thinking about this, the above instruction is completely 
non-interoperable. I am required to provide a mechanism, but how the 
mechanism works is unspecified. Please explain what this means.

6.2.1
        Handling of unsolicited reports has a significant cost to the
        receiver.  Senders of unsolicited reports, especially those
        sending large volumes of them automatically, need to be aware of
        this and do all they reasonably can to avoid sending reports that
        cannot be used as a basis for action by the recipient, whether
        this is due to the report being sent about an incident that is
        not abuse-related, the report being sent to an email address that
        won't result in action, or the content or format of the report
        being hard for the recipient to read or use.

I don't get why 2119 language is being avoided in the above. Why not 
s/need to be aware of this and do all they reasonably can to avoid 
sending/[MUST/SHOULD] NOT send ?

6.3.1
        MUAs SHOULD NOT generate abuse reports directly to entities
        merely because they were found in the message, or by queries to
        WHOIS ([RFC3912]) or other heuristic means.  Rather, the MUA
        needs to signal, by some means, the mailbox provider to which it
        connects to trigger generation of such a report.

The first sentence seems to conflict with 6.3/3. I don't understand the 
second sentence. Please explain.

6.4.3
        Finally, they need to be
        aware that the report could be discarded or ignored due to
        failure to take these steps in the most extreme cases.

How about, "In extreme cases, failure to do these things may result in 
the report being discarded or ignored."?

7.1
        Selection of the recipient(s) for reports that are automatically
        generated MUST be done based on data provided by the report
        recipient, and MUST NOT be done heuristically.  Therefore these
        reports are always solicited, such as the mechanisms defined in
        the examples listed above.

Stylistic: "Automatic report generators MUST select recipients based on 
data provided by the report recipient. In particular, recipients MUST 
NOT be selected heuristically."

    3.  When sending a new report via SMTP, it is necessary to construct
        the message so as to avoid amplification attacks, deliberate or
        otherwise.  The envelope sender address of the report needs to be
        chosen so that these reports will not generate mail loops.
        Similar to Section 2 of [RFC3464], the envelope sender address of
        the report needs to be chosen to ensure that no feedback reports
        will be issued in response to the report itself.  Therefore, when
        an SMTP transaction is used to send a report, the MAIL FROM
        command SHOULD use the NULL reverse-path, i.e., "MAIL FROM:<>".

Again, it seems that more 2119 language is appropriate here:

        The message for a new report sent via SMTP MUST be constructed
        so as to avoid amplification attacks, deliberate or
        otherwise.  The envelope sender address of the report MUST be
        chosen so that these reports will not generate mail loops.
        Similar to Section 2 of [RFC3464], the envelope sender address of
        the report MUST be chosen to ensure that no feedback reports
        will be issued in response to the report itself.  Therefore, when
        an SMTP transaction is used to send a report, the MAIL FROM
        command SHOULD use the NULL reverse-path, i.e., "MAIL FROM:<>".

I'm not totally clear on why the final "SHOULD" is not a "MUST", but I 
guess I can see that you might form it differently.

And finally, in the stylistic category, each section starts with:

    The following subsections include statements applicable when XYZing

Gads, I hate the passive construction. I don't have a recommendation.

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102


From msk@cloudmark.com  Tue Apr  3 13:36:02 2012
Return-Path: <msk@cloudmark.com>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC83D11E8205 for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue,  3 Apr 2012 13:36:02 -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=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eg6KtLlR2E8P for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue,  3 Apr 2012 13:36:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.26]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79FC411E81F5 for <marf@ietf.org>; Tue,  3 Apr 2012 13:36:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EXCH-MBX901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::addf:849a:f71c:4a82]) by exch-htcas902.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::e82a:4f80:7f44:eaf7%12]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Tue, 3 Apr 2012 13:36:01 -0700
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: "marf@ietf.org" <marf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [marf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-marf-as-12.txt
Thread-Index: AQHNDllZfGdC/tv0gEeE29FQyVLeOJaCmA9QgAdKBgD//7NqYA==
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 20:36:01 +0000
Message-ID: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C7CF4@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <20120330094043.29232.83839.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C27AD@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <4F7B3C86.8030200@qualcomm.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F7B3C86.8030200@qualcomm.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [172.20.2.121]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [marf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-marf-as-12.txt
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2012 20:36:03 -0000

Attached is a diff that should satisfy everything Pete just brought up.  Pl=
ease let me know if there are any objections.  Since most of this is well-b=
aked and I don't believe any of it changes what the WG is actually trying t=
o say (i.e., it's mostly about better choice of language and expression), I=
'll post a new version in the next couple of days unless there's objection.=
  Then hopefully we can get this one moving.

-MSK


From ietf@jacobrideout.net  Tue Apr  3 13:36:35 2012
Return-Path: <ietf@jacobrideout.net>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C564521F86EF for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue,  3 Apr 2012 13:36:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id D38G4iOTNnSD for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue,  3 Apr 2012 13:36:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jacobrideout.net (jacobrideout.net [74.50.50.180]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 224C321F86EC for <marf@ietf.org>; Tue,  3 Apr 2012 13:36:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-bk0-f44.google.com (mail-bk0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by jacobrideout.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 765CE400F3 for <marf@ietf.org>; Tue,  3 Apr 2012 14:36:34 -0600 (MDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=jacobrideout.net; s=2012a; t=1333485394; bh=G2v7S6C2sNgkz3wTgeQsShzfpYEe0RGO4jFIZjgfkFo=; h=Reply-To:In-Reply-To:References:From:Date:Subject:To:Cc; b=NUUoa+R/gV0I6eTbakAiMKPxnCB9/l4FuBeS+LwKTPmNQhVHpVQ1BwIkvrEJaUiO8 /l+TGJ81gRAJwzSzdvcnRyiqUytx2p0xCalrG0/B58wS+qykjf9P5RM1KjSOz0SzsF iGUTLJw5AeJRDRCbbvbK+q95Ktn1mVDd+znShGmY=
Received: by bkuw5 with SMTP id w5so138217bku.31 for <marf@ietf.org>; Tue, 03 Apr 2012 13:36:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.204.154.3 with SMTP id m3mr1467891bkw.103.1333485392807; Tue, 03 Apr 2012 13:36:32 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.204.39.9 with HTTP; Tue, 3 Apr 2012 13:36:12 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4F7B3C86.8030200@qualcomm.com>
References: <20120330094043.29232.83839.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C27AD@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <4F7B3C86.8030200@qualcomm.com>
From: Jacob R Rideout <ietf@jacobrideout.net>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 14:36:12 -0600
Message-ID: <CAK+pC__NA9W4qjn15oJv5x99fMeui3=UXD2OG0vtXeJgJckAfw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "marf@ietf.org" <marf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [marf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-marf-as-12.txt
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: ietf@jacobrideout.net
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2012 20:36:35 -0000

> 4.3.1.
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0The reports SHOULD use "Feedback-Type: abuse", but ca=
n use other
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 types as appropriate to the nature of the abuse bein=
g reported.
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 However, the Mailbox Provider generating the reports=
 needs to
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 understand that the operator receiving the reports m=
ight not
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 treat different feedback types any differently.
>
> How about instead: "The reports SHOULD use "Feedback-Type: abuse" for its
> type. Although a Mailbox Provider generating the reports can use other ty=
pes
> appropriate to the nature of the abuse being reported, the operator
> receiving the reports might not treat different feedback types differentl=
y."
> The "needs to understand" construction confused me as it didn't seem like
> something actionable.

For the ARF reports we generate, we always use "Feedback-Type: abuse",
but add an Abuse-Type field that describes the origin of the abuse.
Currently this is one of complaint, trap, trap-pristine, or
trap-recycled. Are we suggesting that these types should be used in
place of abuse for Feedback-Type? Section 5.2.1 makes it clear that
the specific meaning of abuse might require additional analysis.

> 6.2.1
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Handling of unsolicited reports has a significant co=
st to the
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 receiver. =C2=A0Senders of unsolicited reports, espe=
cially those
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 sending large volumes of them automatically, need to=
 be aware of
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 this and do all they reasonably can to avoid sending=
 reports that
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 cannot be used as a basis for action by the recipien=
t, whether
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 this is due to the report being sent about an incide=
nt that is
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 not abuse-related, the report being sent to an email=
 address that
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 won't result in action, or the content or format of =
the report
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 being hard for the recipient to read or use.
>
> I don't get why 2119 language is being avoided in the above. Why not s/ne=
ed
> to be aware of this and do all they reasonably can to avoid
> sending/[MUST/SHOULD] NOT send ?

Are generators of unsolicited report also required to respect 6.1.1?
Does this establish some type of opt-out regime?

From msk@cloudmark.com  Tue Apr  3 13:38:27 2012
Return-Path: <msk@cloudmark.com>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C66F911E8209 for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue,  3 Apr 2012 13:38:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.448
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MANGLED_DOSE=2.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Q25rAbS4AFUQ for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue,  3 Apr 2012 13:38:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.26]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DB1911E8205 for <marf@ietf.org>; Tue,  3 Apr 2012 13:38:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EXCH-MBX901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::addf:849a:f71c:4a82]) by exch-htcas902.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::e82a:4f80:7f44:eaf7%12]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Tue, 3 Apr 2012 13:38:24 -0700
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: "marf@ietf.org" <marf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [marf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-marf-as-12.txt
Thread-Index: AQHNDllZfGdC/tv0gEeE29FQyVLeOJaCmA9QgAdKBgD//7NqYIAAAKJA
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 20:38:23 +0000
Message-ID: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C7D18@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <20120330094043.29232.83839.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C27AD@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <4F7B3C86.8030200@qualcomm.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C7CF4@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
In-Reply-To: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C7CF4@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [172.20.2.121]
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="_002_9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C7D18exchmbx901corpclo_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [marf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-marf-as-12.txt
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2012 20:38:27 -0000

--_002_9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C7D18exchmbx901corpclo_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

> -----Original Message-----
> From: marf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:marf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of M=
urray S. Kucherawy
> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 1:36 PM
> To: marf@ietf.org
> Cc: Pete Resnick
> Subject: Re: [marf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-marf-as-12.txt
>=20
> Attached is a diff that should satisfy everything Pete just brought up.
> Please let me know if there are any objections.  Since most of this is
> well-baked and I don't believe any of it changes what the WG is
> actually trying to say (i.e., it's mostly about better choice of
> language and expression), I'll post a new version in the next couple of
> days unless there's objection.  Then hopefully we can get this one
> moving.

...and now, with the attachment.


--_002_9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C7D18exchmbx901corpclo_
Content-Type: text/html; name="marf-as-diff.html"
Content-Description: marf-as-diff.html
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="marf-as-diff.html"; size=89544;
	creation-date="Tue, 03 Apr 2012 20:38:18 GMT";
	modification-date="Tue, 03 Apr 2012 20:33:47 GMT"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
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--_002_9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C7D18exchmbx901corpclo_--

From msk@cloudmark.com  Tue Apr  3 13:41:19 2012
Return-Path: <msk@cloudmark.com>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5655D11E820C for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue,  3 Apr 2012 13:41:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.455
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.455 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.144, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Fiwo85fv5Bxi for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue,  3 Apr 2012 13:41:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8587111E8205 for <marf@ietf.org>; Tue,  3 Apr 2012 13:41:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EXCH-MBX901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::addf:849a:f71c:4a82]) by exch-htcas901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::2524:76b6:a865:539c%10]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Tue, 3 Apr 2012 13:41:17 -0700
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: "ietf@jacobrideout.net" <ietf@jacobrideout.net>
Thread-Topic: [marf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-marf-as-12.txt
Thread-Index: AQHNDllZfGdC/tv0gEeE29FQyVLeOJaCmA9QgAdKBgCAAClhAP//i3WQ
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 20:41:16 +0000
Message-ID: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C7D2E@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <20120330094043.29232.83839.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C27AD@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <4F7B3C86.8030200@qualcomm.com> <CAK+pC__NA9W4qjn15oJv5x99fMeui3=UXD2OG0vtXeJgJckAfw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAK+pC__NA9W4qjn15oJv5x99fMeui3=UXD2OG0vtXeJgJckAfw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [172.20.2.121]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "marf@ietf.org" <marf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [marf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-marf-as-12.txt
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2012 20:41:19 -0000
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From vesely@tana.it  Wed Apr  4 09:40:59 2012
Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E395621F8847 for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed,  4 Apr 2012 09:40:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.502
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.502 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.217,  BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LZHQ59ohcbMT for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed,  4 Apr 2012 09:40:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA36021F8798 for <marf@ietf.org>; Wed,  4 Apr 2012 09:40:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=test; t=1333557658; bh=YHKjF369c3RJPx70GKcK57DCHFXk2G1E5Xpry+RQrFc=; l=2777; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:CC:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=GlPnGhW9/LnKyXOwQHPAVqYy2na2ZCnfKpiaH/S7pWdrvJXD1loeMQ3qO3icRAXpy wpgIVsalXbXI8a2ZuLkIiwHbJulFMpMgTWb7ZqATdCc36NJ5xkXhqH+O1SkqwY3tTT zHKYHS9TOavKIW2MGqg38XpYFRZYYYeGv6sifQd0=
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; Wed, 04 Apr 2012 18:40:57 +0200 id 00000000005DC035.000000004F7C7999.00006833
Message-ID: <4F7C7999.5090205@tana.it>
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 18:40:57 +0200
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: marf@ietf.org
References: <20120330094043.29232.83839.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C27AD@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <4F7B3C86.8030200@qualcomm.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F7B3C86.8030200@qualcomm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [marf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-marf-as-12.txt
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 16:41:00 -0000

On 03/Apr/12 20:08, Pete Resnick wrote:
> On 3/30/12 4:49 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> 
> 4.3.1.
>       The reports SHOULD use "Feedback-Type: abuse", but can use other
>        types as appropriate to the nature of the abuse being reported.
>        However, the Mailbox Provider generating the reports needs to
>        understand that the operator receiving the reports might not
>        treat different feedback types any differently.
> 
> How about instead: "The reports SHOULD use "Feedback-Type: abuse" for
> its type. Although a Mailbox Provider generating the reports can use
> other types appropriate to the nature of the abuse being reported, the
> operator receiving the reports might not treat different feedback
> types differently." The "needs to understand" construction confused me
> as it didn't seem like something actionable.

The suggested replacement seems to be saying that it is fine to use
"Feedback-Type: abuse" even if that doesn't correspond to the actual
content.  Would s/its type/such type/ avoid it?

> 6.1.1
>        A report generator MUST provide a way for a report recipient to
>        request no further reports be sent to that address and MAY
>        provide a way for recipients to change the address(es) to which
>        reports about them are sent.  Details of such mechanisms are
>        outside of the scope of [RFC5965], [RFC6449], and this document.
> 
> So, thinking about this, the above instruction is completely
> non-interoperable. I am required to provide a mechanism, but how the
> mechanism works is unspecified. Please explain what this means.

For Pete's info, the WG briefly discussed the possibility to describe
a mechanism, and concluded that mandating such compliance was too much
of a burden for a report generator.

> 6.3.1
>        MUAs SHOULD NOT generate abuse reports directly to entities
>        merely because they were found in the message, or by queries to
>        WHOIS ([RFC3912]) or other heuristic means.  Rather, the MUA
>        needs to signal, by some means, the mailbox provider to which it
>        connects to trigger generation of such a report.
> 
> The first sentence seems to conflict with 6.3/3. I don't understand
> the second sentence. Please explain.

I'd propose the following text, rather than striking the whole paragraph:

   MUAs SHOULD NOT send abuse reports directly to the entities they
   deem responsible of the abuse.  Rather, MUAs need to signal the
   abuse to the mailbox provider to which they connect.  A MUA's
   signal may or may not use ARF [RFC5965] format, depending on how
   it's done.  This document does not specify by what means MUAs do
   such signaling.  The rest of this section discusses where Mailbox
   Providers can send reports, albeit possibly triggered by MUAs'
   signals.

Would that make the point any clearer?

From presnick@qualcomm.com  Wed Apr  4 11:40:24 2012
Return-Path: <presnick@qualcomm.com>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 223DE11E80AF for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed,  4 Apr 2012 11:40:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DjGbKDpO6OGM for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed,  4 Apr 2012 11:40:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wolverine01.qualcomm.com (wolverine01.qualcomm.com [199.106.114.254]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B321B11E80AD for <marf@ietf.org>; Wed,  4 Apr 2012 11:40:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qualcomm.com; i=presnick@qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1333564822; x=1365100822; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc: subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:x-originating-ip; z=Message-ID:=20<4F7C9592.3050007@qualcomm.com>|Date:=20We d,=204=20Apr=202012=2013:40:18=20-0500|From:=20Pete=20Res nick=20<presnick@qualcomm.com>|User-Agent:=20Mozilla/5.0 =20(Macintosh=3B=20U=3B=20Intel=20Mac=20OS=20X=2010.6=3B =20en-US=3B=20rv:1.9.1.9)=20Gecko/20100630=20Eudora/3.0.4 |MIME-Version:=201.0|To:=20Alessandro=20Vesely=20<vesely@ tana.it>|CC:=20<marf@ietf.org>|Subject:=20Re:=20[marf]=20 I-D=20Action:=20draft-ietf-marf-as-12.txt|References:=20< 20120330094043.29232.83839.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>=09<9 452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C27AD@exch-mbx901.corp.cl oudmark.com>=09<4F7B3C86.8030200@qualcomm.com>=20<4F7C799 9.5090205@tana.it>|In-Reply-To:=20<4F7C7999.5090205@tana. it>|Content-Type:=20text/plain=3B=20charset=3D"ISO-8859-1 "=3B=20format=3Dflowed|Content-Transfer-Encoding:=207bit |X-Originating-IP:=20[172.30.39.5]; bh=4fOYCPSdhlJo07qnOdvDB5D1TI9ms8OCmHwT4w23IvQ=; b=fJeR8/Td5/EOgYCGNkBOQ6gvKzEpXmG0x3lkDYcb4Wpcrie6taoO/F3q /lx1AhVHoID1RM8z5yBegQ8yqvA6h/mmlq/4kBxUGjHQS1YSJrUSqpv// tjtW4ZUMIDSCkHH3Z4v4vWpC8W2Q0crFm40kJzbWMuGOi3xesJitvqUwB U=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6670"; a="178887594"
Received: from ironmsg02-l.qualcomm.com ([172.30.48.16]) by wolverine01.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 04 Apr 2012 11:40:22 -0700
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,370,1330934400"; d="scan'208";a="120011288"
Received: from nasanexhc08.na.qualcomm.com ([172.30.39.7]) by ironmsg02-L.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 04 Apr 2012 11:40:22 -0700
Received: from resnick2.qualcomm.com (172.30.39.5) by qcmail1.qualcomm.com (172.30.39.7) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.283.3; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 11:40:21 -0700
Message-ID: <4F7C9592.3050007@qualcomm.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 13:40:18 -0500
From: Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100630 Eudora/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
References: <20120330094043.29232.83839.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>	<9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C27AD@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>	<4F7B3C86.8030200@qualcomm.com> <4F7C7999.5090205@tana.it>
In-Reply-To: <4F7C7999.5090205@tana.it>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: [172.30.39.5]
Cc: marf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [marf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-marf-as-12.txt
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 18:40:24 -0000

On 4/4/12 11:40 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> On 03/Apr/12 20:08, Pete Resnick wrote:
>    
>> On 3/30/12 4:49 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>>
>> 4.3.1.
>>        The reports SHOULD use "Feedback-Type: abuse", but can use other
>>         types as appropriate to the nature of the abuse being reported.
>>         However, the Mailbox Provider generating the reports needs to
>>         understand that the operator receiving the reports might not
>>         treat different feedback types any differently.
>>
>> How about instead: "The reports SHOULD use "Feedback-Type: abuse" for
>> its type. Although a Mailbox Provider generating the reports can use
>> other types appropriate to the nature of the abuse being reported, the
>> operator receiving the reports might not treat different feedback
>> types differently." The "needs to understand" construction confused me
>> as it didn't seem like something actionable.
>>      
> The suggested replacement seems to be saying that it is fine to use
> "Feedback-Type: abuse" even if that doesn't correspond to the actual
> content.  Would s/its type/such type/ avoid it?
>    

That wasn't my understanding of the intent of the original text. The 
original seemed to say that you SHOULD use "abuse" unless you had good 
reason to think doing otherwise was OK, and in fact choosing something 
other than "abuse" might be unproductive since receivers might treat 
everything as if it were "abuse". If you want to say "SHOULD use 'abuse' 
when it's abuse", then I'd like to hear why that's not a MUST.

>> 6.1.1
>>         A report generator MUST provide a way for a report recipient to
>>         request no further reports be sent to that address and MAY
>>         provide a way for recipients to change the address(es) to which
>>         reports about them are sent.  Details of such mechanisms are
>>         outside of the scope of [RFC5965], [RFC6449], and this document.
>>
>> So, thinking about this, the above instruction is completely
>> non-interoperable. I am required to provide a mechanism, but how the
>> mechanism works is unspecified. Please explain what this means.
>>      
> For Pete's info, the WG briefly discussed the possibility to describe
> a mechanism, and concluded that mandating such compliance was too much
> of a burden for a report generator.
>    

Yes, Murray and I chatted about this offline, and what he has suggested 
for 6.1.1 explains that well:

    1.  Handling of unsolicited reports has a significant cost to the
        receiver.  Senders of unsolicited reports, especially those
        sending large volumes of them automatically, need to be aware of
        this and do all they reasonably can to avoid sending reports that
        cannot be used as a basis for action by the recipient, whether
        this is due to the report being sent about an incident that is
        not abuse-related, the report being sent to an email address that
        won't result in action, or the content or format of the report
        being hard for the recipient to read or use.


>> 6.3.1
>>         MUAs SHOULD NOT generate abuse reports directly to entities
>>         merely because they were found in the message, or by queries to
>>         WHOIS ([RFC3912]) or other heuristic means.  Rather, the MUA
>>         needs to signal, by some means, the mailbox provider to which it
>>         connects to trigger generation of such a report.
>>
>> The first sentence seems to conflict with 6.3/3. I don't understand
>> the second sentence. Please explain.
>>      
> I'd propose the following text, rather than striking the whole paragraph:
>
>     MUAs SHOULD NOT send abuse reports directly to the entities they
>     deem responsible of the abuse.  Rather, MUAs need to signal the
>     abuse to the mailbox provider to which they connect.  A MUA's
>     signal may or may not use ARF [RFC5965] format, depending on how
>     it's done.  This document does not specify by what means MUAs do
>     such signaling.  The rest of this section discusses where Mailbox
>     Providers can send reports, albeit possibly triggered by MUAs'
>     signals.
>
> Would that make the point any clearer?
>    

Again, Murray and I chatted offline about this. It's not MUAs that are 
the problem. MUAs that follow all of the rules of a service provider 
(e.g., who send user initiated reports to an address in the appropriate 
header field) are well within rights to be sending abuse reports 
directly (and if you want to argue against that, I'm happy to argue back 
*strongly*). The key is that you don't want reports that go addresses 
that *any* generator (MUA or otherwise) simply pulls out of some random 
From: field or the like. Again, I like Murray's suggested replacement:

    1.  Report generators SHOULD NOT send reports to recipients that are
        uninvolved or only peripherally involved.  For example, they
        SHOULD NOT send reports to the operator of every Autonomous
        System in the path between the apparent originating system and
        the operator generating the report.  Instead, they need to send
        reports to recipients that are both responsible for the messages
        and are able to do something about them.


That explains the concern. Being an MUA is not the problem.

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102


From presnick@qualcomm.com  Wed Apr  4 11:59:17 2012
Return-Path: <presnick@qualcomm.com>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 851AD21F863C for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed,  4 Apr 2012 11:59:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Dw40iOPlPIMt for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed,  4 Apr 2012 11:59:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wolverine02.qualcomm.com (wolverine02.qualcomm.com [199.106.114.251]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E387021F863B for <marf@ietf.org>; Wed,  4 Apr 2012 11:59:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qualcomm.com; i=presnick@qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1333565956; x=1365101956; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc: subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:x-originating-ip; z=Message-ID:=20<4F7C99FE.9050507@qualcomm.com>|Date:=20We d,=204=20Apr=202012=2013:59:10=20-0500|From:=20Pete=20Res nick=20<presnick@qualcomm.com>|User-Agent:=20Mozilla/5.0 =20(Macintosh=3B=20U=3B=20Intel=20Mac=20OS=20X=2010.6=3B =20en-US=3B=20rv:1.9.1.9)=20Gecko/20100630=20Eudora/3.0.4 |MIME-Version:=201.0|To:=20"Murray=20S.=20Kucherawy"=20<m sk@cloudmark.com>|CC:=20"marf@ietf.org"=20<marf@ietf.org> |Subject:=20Re:=20[marf]=20I-D=20Action:=20draft-ietf-mar f-as-12.txt|References:=20<20120330094043.29232.83839.idt racker@ietfa.amsl.com>=09<9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392 80C27AD@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>=09<4F7B3C86.80302 00@qualcomm.com>=20<9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C7CF 4@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>|In-Reply-To:=20<9452079 D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C7CF4@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmar k.com>|Content-Type:=20text/plain=3B=20charset=3D"ISO-885 9-1"=3B=20format=3Dflowed|Content-Transfer-Encoding:=207b it|X-Originating-IP:=20[172.30.39.5]; bh=9qWp13HhWA/fMYh0Sr8Py85tkJYguVRI0SqjRTZcJic=; b=OInYOdM3a2LovvMcP67zKMoZTljfOlsZqiyLzE/PTfXiKpczo9amQWu1 oglX3OnIBlpc3fQs8vcKYls07yjGcKnGjrEmdumKKHKUscRadmm8jZaWj 0H+Ce4fU6f6xUtfoWUt0DZ64NkEuibVAyddtrVQE2sF2rthocyVCuG08L 0=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6670"; a="176603855"
Received: from ironmsg04-r.qualcomm.com ([172.30.46.18]) by wolverine02.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 04 Apr 2012 11:59:12 -0700
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,370,1330934400"; d="scan'208";a="299287299"
Received: from nasanexhc08.na.qualcomm.com ([172.30.39.7]) by Ironmsg04-R.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 04 Apr 2012 11:59:12 -0700
Received: from resnick2.qualcomm.com (172.30.39.5) by qcmail1.qualcomm.com (172.30.39.7) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.283.3; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 11:59:11 -0700
Message-ID: <4F7C99FE.9050507@qualcomm.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 13:59:10 -0500
From: Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100630 Eudora/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
References: <20120330094043.29232.83839.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>	<9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C27AD@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>	<4F7B3C86.8030200@qualcomm.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C7CF4@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
In-Reply-To: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C7CF4@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: [172.30.39.5]
Cc: "marf@ietf.org" <marf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [marf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-marf-as-12.txt
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 18:59:17 -0000

On 4/3/12 3:36 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> Attached is a diff that should satisfy everything Pete just brought up.  Please let me know if there are any objections.

Well, mostly. :-)

> On 4/3/12 1:08 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
>> 5.1.1.
>>        At the time this document is being written, for the use cases
>>        described here, mail operators need to proactively request a
>>        stream of ARF reports from Mailbox Providers.  Recommendations
>>        for preparing to make that request are discussed in Section 4.1
>>        of [RFC6449].
>>
>> Strike "At the time this document is being written, for the use cases 
>> described here". It seems utterly obvious. If you write a new 
>> document with new use cases, you can change the instruction. Also, 
>> why "need to" instead of "MUST"?
>
>     1.  Mail operators MUST proactively request a stream of ARF reports
>         from Mailbox Providers.  Recommendations for preparing to make
>         that request are discussed in Section 4.1 of [RFC6449].
>    

Um, OK, that makes it clear why it ought not be a MUST. :-) Seriously 
though, you *don't* want to say that *all* mail operators MUST a request 
(which is how the sentence currently reads). You probably want to say 
that all requests MUST be proactive. The first sentence needs re-arranging.

>     2.  Operators must be able to accept ARF [RFC5965] reports as email
>         messages [RFC5322] over SMTP [RFC5321].  These and other types of
>         email messages that can be received are discussed in Section 4.2
>         of [RFC6449].
>    

Is there a reason that first "must" is not capitalized?

>
> 6.2.1
>        Handling of unsolicited reports has a significant cost to the
>        receiver.  Senders of unsolicited reports, especially those
>        sending large volumes of them automatically, need to be aware of
>        this and do all they reasonably can to avoid sending reports that
>        cannot be used as a basis for action by the recipient, whether
>        this is due to the report being sent about an incident that is
>        not abuse-related, the report being sent to an email address that
>        won't result in action, or the content or format of the report
>        being hard for the recipient to read or use.
>
> I don't get why 2119 language is being avoided in the above. Why not 
> s/need to be aware of this and do all they reasonably can to avoid 
> sending/[MUST/SHOULD] NOT send ?

This was not addressed.

Everything else seems to be covered, and see also my answer to Alessandro.

Thanks.

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102


From vesely@tana.it  Wed Apr  4 12:27:05 2012
Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D346611E80C4 for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed,  4 Apr 2012 12:27:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.533
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.533 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.186,  BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RlKc6-oPxi1Y for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed,  4 Apr 2012 12:27:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80DF111E80BE for <marf@ietf.org>; Wed,  4 Apr 2012 12:27:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=test; t=1333567622; bh=RXUB6/nqyANSd+9LagYCg5BBl6iNmMqMjiW91ocqb+I=; l=5777; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:CC:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=Nx/l7U6YywEIg+6A/p+wwLGzxwuahR74wX/BF2dYDS7C0n5Q62M9EUFckp91/ZJvP sgZ/Uv6OHSU8Igob7yJSc/2ubYVuiDtG3a2qMEeTjChHRvx5orYAuJunFWsyUnwweS QgNPXzNuQ7qHC2lZxV0d8lZXRyrFNf1gQhmldCi8=
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; Wed, 04 Apr 2012 21:27:02 +0200 id 00000000005DC033.000000004F7CA086.00000F00
Message-ID: <4F7CA085.1070403@tana.it>
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 21:27:01 +0200
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>
References: <20120330094043.29232.83839.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>	<9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C27AD@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>	<4F7B3C86.8030200@qualcomm.com> <4F7C7999.5090205@tana.it> <4F7C9592.3050007@qualcomm.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F7C9592.3050007@qualcomm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: marf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [marf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-marf-as-12.txt
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 19:27:06 -0000

On 04/Apr/12 20:40, Pete Resnick wrote:
> On 4/4/12 11:40 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>> On 03/Apr/12 20:08, Pete Resnick wrote:
>>   
>>> How about instead: "The reports SHOULD use "Feedback-Type: abuse" for
>>> its type. Although a Mailbox Provider generating the reports can use
>>> other types appropriate to the nature of the abuse being reported, the
>>> operator receiving the reports might not treat different feedback
>>> types differently." The "needs to understand" construction confused me
>>> as it didn't seem like something actionable.
>>
>> The suggested replacement seems to be saying that it is fine to use
>> "Feedback-Type: abuse" even if that doesn't correspond to the actual
>> content.  Would s/its type/such type/ avoid it?
> 
> That wasn't my understanding of the intent of the original text. The
> original seemed to say that you SHOULD use "abuse" unless you had good
> reason to think doing otherwise was OK, and in fact choosing something
> other than "abuse" might be unproductive since receivers might treat
> everything as if it were "abuse".

Uh, I understood it as the the statement that the expected type of
report is abuse, so much that some software can be equipped to only
write "abuse" or to assume that it is "abuse" even without reading it.

> If you want to say "SHOULD use 'abuse' when it's abuse", then I'd
> like to hear why that's not a MUST.

Hmm... possibly to avoid putting too many requirements?  A good reason
to think that putting something different, e.g. "virus" is if one is
equipped to report viruses that way.  But even then, receivers may be
unable to treat it properly, and this has to be taken into account.
Using some common sense is probably better.

>> For Pete's info, the WG briefly discussed the possibility to describe
>> a mechanism, and concluded that mandating such compliance was too much
>> of a burden for a report generator.
> 
> Yes, Murray and I chatted about this offline, and what he has
> suggested for 6.1.1 explains that well:
> 
>    1.  Handling of unsolicited reports has a significant cost to the
>        receiver.  Senders of unsolicited reports, especially those
>        sending large volumes of them automatically, need to be aware of
>        this and do all they reasonably can to avoid sending reports that
>        cannot be used as a basis for action by the recipient, whether
>        this is due to the report being sent about an incident that is
>        not abuse-related, the report being sent to an email address that
>        won't result in action, or the content or format of the report
>        being hard for the recipient to read or use.

This doesn't seem to touch much on how to pause sending in case of an
overwhelming number of reports, but that text is fine for me anyway.

>>> 6.3.1
>>>      MUAs SHOULD NOT generate abuse reports directly to entities
>>>      merely because they were found in the message, or by queries to
>>>      WHOIS ([RFC3912]) or other heuristic means.  Rather, the MUA
>>>      needs to signal, by some means, the mailbox provider to which it
>>>      connects to trigger generation of such a report.
>>>
>>> The first sentence seems to conflict with 6.3/3. I don't understand
>>> the second sentence. Please explain.
>>>      
>> I'd propose the following text, rather than striking the whole
>> paragraph:
>>
>>     MUAs SHOULD NOT send abuse reports directly to the entities they
>>     deem responsible of the abuse.  Rather, MUAs need to signal the
>>     abuse to the mailbox provider to which they connect.  A MUA's
>>     signal may or may not use ARF [RFC5965] format, depending on how
>>     it's done.  This document does not specify by what means MUAs do
>>     such signaling.  The rest of this section discusses where Mailbox
>>     Providers can send reports, albeit possibly triggered by MUAs'
>>     signals.
>>
>> Would that make the point any clearer?
> 
> Again, Murray and I chatted offline about this. It's not MUAs that are
> the problem. MUAs that follow all of the rules of a service provider
> (e.g., who send user initiated reports to an address in the
> appropriate header field) are well within rights to be sending abuse
> reports directly (and if you want to argue against that, I'm happy to
> argue back *strongly*).

I wouldn't object against a MUA's right to send an abuse report,
especially if the server it connects to doesn't do such service, or
does it poorly.  The point is that that's not how things should be.
Two reasons are as follows:

1. Rejecting spam is generally considered more effective than
   quarantining it.  Hence, it is good if the MUA cooperates with its
   server on this.  Signaling spam, in particular, provides a means to
   instruct filters for on-line rejection.

2. MUAs most often live behind a NAT and don't have the requisites
   for letting an occasional abuse report evolve into an established
   feedback arrangement.  A server may provide a web-based reporting
   shop for that.  This perspective is addressed in 6.5/4.

Is there a better way to convey that?

> The key is that you don't want reports that go addresses that *any*
> generator (MUA or otherwise) simply pulls out of some random From:
> field or the like. Again, I like Murray's suggested replacement:
> 
>    1.  Report generators SHOULD NOT send reports to recipients that are
>        uninvolved or only peripherally involved.  For example, they
>        SHOULD NOT send reports to the operator of every Autonomous
>        System in the path between the apparent originating system and
>        the operator generating the report.  Instead, they need to send
>        reports to recipients that are both responsible for the messages
>        and are able to do something about them.

Pete, please don't get distracted by the way the diffs get produced,
that paragraph was there already.

From msk@cloudmark.com  Wed Apr  4 12:41:20 2012
Return-Path: <msk@cloudmark.com>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C868911E80BE for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed,  4 Apr 2012 12:41:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.51
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.089, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aW1h5-Gon0Kb for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed,  4 Apr 2012 12:41:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.26]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1E7C11E80B7 for <marf@ietf.org>; Wed,  4 Apr 2012 12:41:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EXCH-MBX901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::addf:849a:f71c:4a82]) by exch-htcas902.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::e82a:4f80:7f44:eaf7%12]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 12:41:19 -0700
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>
Thread-Topic: [marf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-marf-as-12.txt
Thread-Index: AQHNDllZfGdC/tv0gEeE29FQyVLeOJaCmA9QgAdKBgD//7NqYIAB7TAA//+VqLA=
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 19:41:19 +0000
Message-ID: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C9AD2@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <20120330094043.29232.83839.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C27AD@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <4F7B3C86.8030200@qualcomm.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C7CF4@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <4F7C99FE.9050507@qualcomm.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F7C99FE.9050507@qualcomm.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [172.20.2.121]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "marf@ietf.org" <marf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [marf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-marf-as-12.txt
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 19:41:21 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pete Resnick [mailto:presnick@qualcomm.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 11:59 AM
> To: Murray S. Kucherawy
> Cc: marf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [marf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-marf-as-12.txt
>=20
> >     1.  Mail operators MUST proactively request a stream of ARF reports
> >         from Mailbox Providers.  Recommendations for preparing to make
> >         that request are discussed in Section 4.1 of [RFC6449].
> >
>=20
> Um, OK, that makes it clear why it ought not be a MUST. :-) Seriously
> though, you *don't* want to say that *all* mail operators MUST a
> request (which is how the sentence currently reads). You probably want
> to say that all requests MUST be proactive. The first sentence needs
> re-arranging.

How about:

ARF report streams MUST be established proactively between Report Generator=
s and Mailbox Providers.  Recommendations for preparing to make that reques=
t are discussed in Section 4.1 of <xref target=3D"RFC6449"/>.

> >     2.  Operators must be able to accept ARF [RFC5965] reports as email
> >         messages [RFC5322] over SMTP [RFC5321].  These and other types =
of
> >         email messages that can be received are discussed in Section 4.=
2
> >         of [RFC6449].
>=20
> Is there a reason that first "must" is not capitalized?

Nope, fixed.

> > 6.2.1
> >        Handling of unsolicited reports has a significant cost to the
> >        receiver.  Senders of unsolicited reports, especially those
> >        sending large volumes of them automatically, need to be aware of
> >        this and do all they reasonably can to avoid sending reports tha=
t
> >        cannot be used as a basis for action by the recipient, whether
> >        this is due to the report being sent about an incident that is
> >        not abuse-related, the report being sent to an email address tha=
t
> >        won't result in action, or the content or format of the report
> >        being hard for the recipient to read or use.
> >
> > I don't get why 2119 language is being avoided in the above. Why not
> > s/need to be aware of this and do all they reasonably can to avoid
> > sending/[MUST/SHOULD] NOT send ?
>=20
> This was not addressed.

I think this paragraph sets the stage for the normative stuff throughout th=
e rest of the section.  It doesn't itself carry any normative advice.  It m=
ight thus best be relocated, still without 2119 language, to the top of Sec=
tion 6.  Do you agree?

-MSK

From msk@cloudmark.com  Wed Apr  4 12:48:39 2012
Return-Path: <msk@cloudmark.com>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 086A321F8609 for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed,  4 Apr 2012 12:48:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.517
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.517 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.082, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3wLvj8PwjciD for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed,  4 Apr 2012 12:48:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.26]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CDD621F8596 for <marf@ietf.org>; Wed,  4 Apr 2012 12:48:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EXCH-MBX901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::addf:849a:f71c:4a82]) by exch-htcas902.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::e82a:4f80:7f44:eaf7%12]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 12:48:37 -0700
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>, Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>
Thread-Topic: [marf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-marf-as-12.txt
Thread-Index: AQHNDllZfGdC/tv0gEeE29FQyVLeOJaCmA9QgAdKBgCAAXn8gIAAIVgAgAANDoD//4r0EA==
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 19:48:36 +0000
Message-ID: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C9AFC@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <20120330094043.29232.83839.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C27AD@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <4F7B3C86.8030200@qualcomm.com>	<4F7C7999.5090205@tana.it> <4F7C9592.3050007@qualcomm.com> <4F7CA085.1070403@tana.it>
In-Reply-To: <4F7CA085.1070403@tana.it>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [172.20.2.121]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "marf@ietf.org" <marf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [marf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-marf-as-12.txt
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 19:48:39 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: marf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:marf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of A=
lessandro Vesely
> Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 12:27 PM
> To: Pete Resnick
> Cc: marf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [marf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-marf-as-12.txt
>=20
> > That wasn't my understanding of the intent of the original text. The
> > original seemed to say that you SHOULD use "abuse" unless you had good
> > reason to think doing otherwise was OK, and in fact choosing something
> > other than "abuse" might be unproductive since receivers might treat
> > everything as if it were "abuse".
>=20
> Uh, I understood it as the the statement that the expected type of
> report is abuse, so much that some software can be equipped to only
> write "abuse" or to assume that it is "abuse" even without reading it.

Sounds to me like you're saying the same thing.

> This doesn't seem to touch much on how to pause sending in case of an
> overwhelming number of reports, but that text is fine for me anyway.

I think that's already covered elsewhere.

> I wouldn't object against a MUA's right to send an abuse report,
> especially if the server it connects to doesn't do such service, or
> does it poorly.  The point is that that's not how things should be.
> Two reasons are as follows:
>=20
> 1. Rejecting spam is generally considered more effective than
>    quarantining it.  Hence, it is good if the MUA cooperates with its
>    server on this.  Signaling spam, in particular, provides a means to
>    instruct filters for on-line rejection.

Ah, right, this was lost to memory when Pete and I discussed it in Paris.  =
So how about this, re-inserted as 6.3/1:

   1.  Rather than generating feedback reports themselves, MUAs SHOULD
       make abuse reports back to their mailbox providers so that they
       can generate and send ARF messages on behalf of end users.  This
       allows centralized processing and tracking of reports, and
       provides training input to filtering systems.

...with a reference to Section 3.2 of RFC6449 thrown in there, now that I l=
ook at it.

(The deviation from the SHOULD would be cases where, for example, there is =
no mailbox provider separate from the end user.)

-MSK

From johnl@iecc.com  Wed Apr  4 22:44:57 2012
Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.com>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE40821F87CF for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed,  4 Apr 2012 22:44:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -111.199
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-111.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sI3Etgnjkz7j for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed,  4 Apr 2012 22:44:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1717821F8763 for <marf@ietf.org>; Wed,  4 Apr 2012 22:44:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 34303 invoked from network); 5 Apr 2012 05:44:55 -0000
Received: from leila.iecc.com (64.57.183.34) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 5 Apr 2012 05:44:55 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:vbr-info; s=4f7d3157.xn--yuvv84g.k1204; i=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=X8y9E8ncfc1GrHI4I/2ET2SjiL1kxk5AVf0RlLsceDw=; b=RMy+WVhkO3MyFEh8xvS+Q5LYsVQ+ycdP+b1Xpm7bRUgsx+dTm3/CGwNOGO0mkABSWuTosMArWbPK0S665WKDrvw2wfEuJjO4WwEE7MUWwG+A3QJ5dvnsS2sXMiw27TIoWD4vJQXQCIe40MwYbBtE4Mq/N8rgVEdAKSf8vWD9Rsw=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:vbr-info; s=4f7d3157.xn--yuvv84g.k1204; olt=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=X8y9E8ncfc1GrHI4I/2ET2SjiL1kxk5AVf0RlLsceDw=; b=G4SRNSmxm8bl5gF7LUB/+m26rA+a07TAZuu/L6s9nED4o2Vp8ruHi4K1+Cyl9UkbgUxz6A+KZdokTm7y+DSEgJBxUy7qV6exQb6NhozJe94Nwd78jBUeSH0yrCjgHCCyAZiN92WVhXyS1EaoLg/PJkVAfjGtxHRjRkwxH11LOXs=
VBR-Info: md=iecc.com; mc=all; mv=dwl.spamhaus.org
Date: 5 Apr 2012 05:44:33 -0000
Message-ID: <20120405054433.3819.qmail@joyce.lan>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: marf@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C9AD2@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
Organization: 
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [marf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-marf-as-12.txt
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2012 05:44:58 -0000

>ARF report streams MUST be established proactively between Report
>Generators and Mailbox Providers.  Recommendations for preparing to make
>that request are discussed in Section 4.1 of <xref target="RFC6449"/>.

I don't see why 2119 language is appropriate here.  This is basically
a definition -- a solicited stream is one where there's an agreement,
an unsolicited stream where there isn't.  It's possible to
interoperate either way.

>> > 6.2.1
>> >        Handling of unsolicited reports has a significant cost to the
>> >        receiver.  Senders of unsolicited reports, especially those
>> >        sending large volumes of them automatically, need to be aware of
>> >        this and do all they reasonably can to avoid sending reports that
>> >        cannot be used as a basis for action by the recipient, whether
>> >        this is due to the report being sent about an incident that is
>> >        not abuse-related, the report being sent to an email address that
>> >        won't result in action, or the content or format of the report
>> >        being hard for the recipient to read or use.
>> >
>> > I don't get why 2119 language is being avoided in the above. Why not
>> > s/need to be aware of this and do all they reasonably can to avoid
>> > sending/[MUST/SHOULD] NOT send ?

On the other hand I do think that 2119 is appropriate here.  Senders
of unsolicited reports SHOULD avoid gratuitously annoying people, and
MUST stop bothering people who've told them to stop.  If they don't,
recipients are likely to stop accepting reports which would mean they
don't interoperate.

R's,
John

From msk@cloudmark.com  Thu Apr  5 10:16:52 2012
Return-Path: <msk@cloudmark.com>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D07721F86C5 for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu,  5 Apr 2012 10:16:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.531
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.531 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.068, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KTcD+hUK22mk for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu,  5 Apr 2012 10:16:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.26]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE95A21F86B7 for <marf@ietf.org>; Thu,  5 Apr 2012 10:16:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EXCH-MBX901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::addf:849a:f71c:4a82]) by exch-htcas902.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::e82a:4f80:7f44:eaf7%12]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Thu, 5 Apr 2012 10:16:51 -0700
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: "marf@ietf.org" <marf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [marf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-marf-as-12.txt
Thread-Index: AQHNDllZfGdC/tv0gEeE29FQyVLeOJaCmA9QgAdKBgD//7NqYIAB7TAA//+VqLCAAR6pgIAASh5A
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2012 17:16:51 +0000
Message-ID: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280CAD7A@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C9AD2@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <20120405054433.3819.qmail@joyce.lan>
In-Reply-To: <20120405054433.3819.qmail@joyce.lan>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [172.20.2.121]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [marf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-marf-as-12.txt
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2012 17:16:52 -0000
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From vesely@tana.it  Thu Apr  5 10:25:39 2012
Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E658721F8766 for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu,  5 Apr 2012 10:25:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.407
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.407 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.988, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, MANGLED_SPAM=2.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zOi2ckAq2SSI for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu,  5 Apr 2012 10:25:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (www.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69BCF21F86C8 for <marf@ietf.org>; Thu,  5 Apr 2012 10:25:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=test; t=1333646736; bh=emdFfJoo4NVWsaFNj1Idb/E8Nkzt528pmRy49AyFLvU=; l=2575; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:CC:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=EubVZVaVqITQekRlKX7gXDqzPiMfxRRqUTgDHD/g2+jzBu0a80RuWSH4RbDTkp7YB AoQhaNgVGPTrxXyxFTXImOO2Uv19M3Hlst+DaQKNkv7jtd5c1OuL1JdLJaw14h1+aO d5dJ1z3qHE37TJkO8iySSE2k93g9v/8eTjFsOH8A=
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, 05 Apr 2012 19:25:36 +0200 id 00000000005DC045.000000004F7DD590.000047CC
Message-ID: <4F7DD590.9000705@tana.it>
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2012 19:25:36 +0200
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
References: <20120330094043.29232.83839.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C27AD@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <4F7B3C86.8030200@qualcomm.com>	<4F7C7999.5090205@tana.it> <4F7C9592.3050007@qualcomm.com> <4F7CA085.1070403@tana.it> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C9AFC@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
In-Reply-To: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C9AFC@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>, "marf@ietf.org" <marf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [marf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-marf-as-12.txt
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2012 17:25:40 -0000

On Thu 05/Apr/2012 18:12:41 +0200 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> From: ietf.org On Behalf Of Alessandro Vesely
>
>> Uh, I understood it as the the statement that the expected type of
>> report is abuse, so much that some software can be equipped to only
>> write "abuse" or to assume that it is "abuse" even without reading it.
> 
> Sounds to me like you're saying the same thing.

More or less yes.  It's not a sharp concept, however tweaked.  I was
just trying to make sure we're not introducing wrong interpretations,
such as "always put the same type since recipients may not care"...

>> I wouldn't object against a MUA's right to send an abuse report,
>> especially if the server it connects to doesn't do such service, or
>> does it poorly.  The point is that that's not how things should be.
>> Two reasons are as follows:
>> 
>> 1. Rejecting spam is generally considered more effective than
>>    quarantining it.  Hence, it is good if the MUA cooperates with its
>>    server on this.  Signaling spam, in particular, provides a means to
>>    instruct filters for on-line rejection.
> 
> Ah, right, this was lost to memory when Pete and I discussed it in
> Paris.  So how about this, re-inserted as 6.3/1:
> 
>    1.  Rather than generating feedback reports themselves, MUAs SHOULD
>        make abuse reports back to their mailbox providers so that they
>        can generate and send ARF messages on behalf of end users.  This
>        allows centralized processing and tracking of reports, and
>        provides training input to filtering systems.

As long as "make abuse reports back" is clear, that may work.  MUAs
could use any of John's taxonomy techniques[1], I don't know if it
could be acceptable to refer to that page...

[1] http://wiki.asrg.sp.am/wiki/Adding_a_junk_button_to_MUAs

> ...with a reference to Section 3.2 of RFC6449 thrown in there, now
> that I look at it.

Neat idea, IMHO.

For a nit, the I-D uses the term "report generator".  Its meaning is
obvious.  However, RFC 6449 uses "Feedback Provider" instead.  Would
the addition of a definition in Section 2 ease such references?  E.g.
something like so:

   A "report generator" is the entity or process that generates and
   sends reports.  For feedback reports, it belongs to a "Feedback
   Provider" in the sense of [RFC6449].  This memo uses the term
   Mailbox Provider to refer to these facets too.

> (The deviation from the SHOULD would be cases where, for example,
> there is no mailbox provider separate from the end user.)

More commonly, when its mailbox provider doesn't do reporting.

From msk@cloudmark.com  Thu Apr  5 10:53:32 2012
Return-Path: <msk@cloudmark.com>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5340C21F8752 for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu,  5 Apr 2012 10:53:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.538
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.538 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.061, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zSacnYt504IH for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu,  5 Apr 2012 10:53:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E4DC21F874F for <marf@ietf.org>; Thu,  5 Apr 2012 10:53:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EXCH-MBX901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::addf:849a:f71c:4a82]) by exch-htcas901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::2524:76b6:a865:539c%10]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Thu, 5 Apr 2012 10:53:31 -0700
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: "marf@ietf.org" <marf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [marf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-marf-as-12.txt
Thread-Index: AQHNDllZfGdC/tv0gEeE29FQyVLeOJaCmA9QgAdKBgCAAXn8gIAAIVgAgAANDoD//4r0EIAB5XQA//+MCAA=
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2012 17:53:30 +0000
Message-ID: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280CBE3E@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <20120330094043.29232.83839.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C27AD@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <4F7B3C86.8030200@qualcomm.com>	<4F7C7999.5090205@tana.it> <4F7C9592.3050007@qualcomm.com> <4F7CA085.1070403@tana.it> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C9AFC@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <4F7DD590.9000705@tana.it>
In-Reply-To: <4F7DD590.9000705@tana.it>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [172.20.2.121]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [marf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-marf-as-12.txt
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2012 17:53:32 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alessandro Vesely [mailto:vesely@tana.it]
> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2012 10:26 AM
> To: Murray S. Kucherawy
> Cc: Pete Resnick; marf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [marf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-marf-as-12.txt
>=20
> > Sounds to me like you're saying the same thing.
>=20
> More or less yes.  It's not a sharp concept, however tweaked.  I was
> just trying to make sure we're not introducing wrong interpretations,
> such as "always put the same type since recipients may not care"...

It's meant to be a level-set of assumptions.  If you don't know how your re=
port recipient will handle types other than "abuse" (which all of them use)=
, then you can't make any assumptions.

> > Ah, right, this was lost to memory when Pete and I discussed it in
> > Paris.  So how about this, re-inserted as 6.3/1:
> >
> >    1.  Rather than generating feedback reports themselves, MUAs SHOULD
> >        make abuse reports back to their mailbox providers so that they
> >        can generate and send ARF messages on behalf of end users. This
> >        allows centralized processing and tracking of reports, and
> >        provides training input to filtering systems.
>=20
> As long as "make abuse reports back" is clear, that may work.  MUAs
> could use any of John's taxonomy techniques[1], I don't know if it
> could be acceptable to refer to that page...

I'll note here that there's no standard signaling mechanism for use between=
 MUAs and ISPs to trigger reports.

> For a nit, the I-D uses the term "report generator".  Its meaning is
> obvious.  However, RFC 6449 uses "Feedback Provider" instead.  Would
> the addition of a definition in Section 2 ease such references?  E.g.
> something like so:
> [...]

Actually changing "report generator" to "Feedback Provider" is a better ide=
a because it makes the two documents even more consistent with each other. =
 So I'll do that as well.

-MSK


From johnl@iecc.com  Thu Apr  5 11:54:41 2012
Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.com>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0316321F86C2 for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu,  5 Apr 2012 11:54:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -111.199
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-111.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jmvzGFIWmcnb for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu,  5 Apr 2012 11:54:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F341721F86B0 for <marf@ietf.org>; Thu,  5 Apr 2012 11:54:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 9047 invoked from network); 5 Apr 2012 18:54:38 -0000
Received: from leila.iecc.com (64.57.183.34) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 5 Apr 2012 18:54:38 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:vbr-info; s=4f7dea6e.xn--3zv.k1204; i=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=gCpun0AdrLzofYIjvhyNBrI9iIdwzhneXWBsRoQhTJY=; b=bO9k7gnLUUqL0C7Ob/5UrZFCcq5g1oEwB4APrYYXvBdYR7R0ZA+dWs6wf2wFD9qx7OpYjg2JPsF4Cpf/Uknub/KscezbHTFaWd8NV0kfQTrLfNtMPgjv59Z3+b/fxQGyovPvToX4LCNcRU0Y2EOUU7cPcXQ3CXtM8we3dAAUzxU=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:vbr-info; s=4f7dea6e.xn--3zv.k1204; olt=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=gCpun0AdrLzofYIjvhyNBrI9iIdwzhneXWBsRoQhTJY=; b=RH51D0i4NWFsrIf8eUiQBOblS2Cj+O4hZT7rmX8BdPtTSP0yz8eEDWJsmBUGTuG0yrbOD8LEn9/yIznnaTZYgwqojXo6RlUloRWUDAkQv1Al3hhnScp4kk93Vwms3NiyJTh0v1lQN/HjImVaNFx4COCM4aSXNu5mZt6mlcrkC5k=
VBR-Info: md=iecc.com; mc=all; mv=dwl.spamhaus.org
Date: 5 Apr 2012 18:54:16 -0000
Message-ID: <20120405185416.10559.qmail@joyce.lan>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: marf@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280CAD7A@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
Organization: 
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [marf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-marf-as-12.txt
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2012 18:54:41 -0000

>6.2.  When To Generate Reports
>
>   1.  Handling of unsolicited reports has a significant cost to the
>       receiver.  Senders of unsolicited reports, especially those
>       sending large volumes of them automatically SHOULD NOT send
>       reports that cannot be used as a basis for action by the
>       recipient, whether this is due to the report being sent about an
>       incident that is not abuse-related, the report being sent to an
>       email address that won't result in action, or the content or
>       format of the report being hard for the recipient to read or use.
>
>How's that?

Ship it.

R's,
John

From shmuel+gen@patriot.net  Thu Apr  5 13:09:52 2012
Return-Path: <shmuel+gen@patriot.net>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AB4621F868C for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu,  5 Apr 2012 13:09:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.53
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.53 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, DATE_IN_PAST_06_12=1.069]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id heediZDZmgUT for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu,  5 Apr 2012 13:09:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.patriot.net (smtp.patriot.net [209.249.176.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FA8521F8663 for <marf@ietf.org>; Thu,  5 Apr 2012 13:09:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ECS60015111 (unknown [69.72.27.87]) (Authenticated sender: shmuel@patriot.net) by smtp.patriot.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EF59F580B5 for <marf@ietf.org>; Thu,  5 Apr 2012 16:09:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <shmuel+mail-abuse-feedback-report@patriot.net>
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2012 08:09:48 -0400
To: marf@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <4F7CA085.1070403@tana.it>
Mail-Copies-To: nobody
Organization: Atid/2
X-CompuServe-Customer: Yes
X-Coriate: NCAE@NewAmerica.org
X-Coriate: Mark Griffith <markgriffith@rocketmail.com>
X-Punge: Micro$oft
X-Terminate: SPA(GIS)
X-Treme: C&C,DWS
X-Mailer: MR/2 Internet Cruiser Edition for OS/2 v3.00.11.18 BETA/60 
Message-Id: <20120405200919.8EF59F580B5@smtp.patriot.net>
Subject: Re: [marf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-marf-as-12.txt
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Message Abuse Report Format working group <MARF@IETF.ORG>
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2012 20:09:52 -0000

In <4F7CA085.1070403@tana.it>, on 04/04/2012
   at 09:27 PM, Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> said:

>Is there a better way to convey that?

Perhaps split it into what the MUA should do if the MSA provides for
ARF collection and what the MUA should do if it is on its own. I'd
like to say that the MUA MUST take advantage of centralized ARF
processing if available, but don't see how to square that with RFC
2119, "6. Guidance in the use of these Imperatives".

BTW, that issue applies to some of the other MUST language; in most
cases, we haven't shown that "it is actually required for
interoperation or to limit behavior which (sic) has potential for
causing harm (e.g., limiting retransmisssions)". 

-- 
     Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
     Atid/2        <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)


From presnick@qualcomm.com  Thu Apr  5 16:04:07 2012
Return-Path: <presnick@qualcomm.com>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0387521F8694 for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu,  5 Apr 2012 16:04:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Bw+Yix+23EjF for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu,  5 Apr 2012 16:04:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wolverine01.qualcomm.com (wolverine01.qualcomm.com [199.106.114.254]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53DB621F8620 for <MARF@ietf.org>; Thu,  5 Apr 2012 16:04:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qualcomm.com; i=presnick@qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1333667046; x=1365203046; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc: subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:x-originating-ip; z=Message-ID:=20<4F7E24DD.1010607@qualcomm.com>|Date:=20Th u,=205=20Apr=202012=2018:03:57=20-0500|From:=20Pete=20Res nick=20<presnick@qualcomm.com>|User-Agent:=20Mozilla/5.0 =20(Macintosh=3B=20U=3B=20Intel=20Mac=20OS=20X=2010.6=3B =20en-US=3B=20rv:1.9.1.9)=20Gecko/20100630=20Eudora/3.0.4 |MIME-Version:=201.0|To:=20Message=20Abuse=20Report=20For mat=20working=20group=20<MARF@IETF.ORG>|CC:=20Shmuel=20Me tz=20<shmuel+mail-abuse-feedback-report@patriot.net> |Subject:=20Re:=20[marf]=20I-D=20Action:=20draft-ietf-mar f-as-12.txt|References:=20<20120405200919.8EF59F580B5@smt p.patriot.net>|In-Reply-To:=20<20120405200919.8EF59F580B5 @smtp.patriot.net>|Content-Type:=20text/plain=3B=20charse t=3D"ISO-8859-1"=3B=20format=3Dflowed |Content-Transfer-Encoding:=207bit|X-Originating-IP:=20[1 72.30.48.1]; bh=hntuZIr+t0fhDMyL+kYt5N/W/JZROZHQuZ50x7MuzXg=; b=SMqwW1pmDdcQlBl+0FeIvvOJ7MkjP6f7PgicxvIYvcOLKi9shJuRu6mY Yg+cztmyDCnz9EaK5ZI8t30e46UABa71/c8v6yV+kPm766ion4CDfGA1k jImk3scrHpHrhrCS23syhGxjvkednsOe7KuRZ66vYLHLSu+ZjaAYvyd5+ w=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6671"; a="179339368"
Received: from ironmsg04-r.qualcomm.com ([172.30.46.18]) by wolverine01.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 05 Apr 2012 16:04:02 -0700
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,377,1330934400"; d="scan'208";a="299981647"
Received: from nasanexhc05.na.qualcomm.com ([172.30.48.2]) by Ironmsg04-R.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 05 Apr 2012 16:04:02 -0700
Received: from resnick2.qualcomm.com (172.30.48.1) by qcmail1.qualcomm.com (172.30.48.2) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.283.3; Thu, 5 Apr 2012 16:04:01 -0700
Message-ID: <4F7E24DD.1010607@qualcomm.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2012 18:03:57 -0500
From: Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100630 Eudora/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Message Abuse Report Format working group <MARF@IETF.ORG>
References: <20120405200919.8EF59F580B5@smtp.patriot.net>
In-Reply-To: <20120405200919.8EF59F580B5@smtp.patriot.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: [172.30.48.1]
Subject: Re: [marf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-marf-as-12.txt
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2012 23:04:07 -0000

On 4/5/12 7:09 AM, Shmuel Metz wrote:
> I'd
> like to say that the MUA MUST take advantage of centralized ARF
> processing if available, but don't see how to square that with RFC
> 2119, "6. Guidance in the use of these Imperatives".
>
> BTW, that issue applies to some of the other MUST language; in most
> cases, we haven't shown that "it is actually required for
> interoperation or to limit behavior which (sic) has potential for
> causing harm (e.g., limiting retransmisssions)".

I went through them with all and I'm at least comfortable that all of 
the ones that are left are there to either improve interoperability or 
limit damaging behavior. If you see one that isn't, call it out.

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102


From vesely@tana.it  Fri Apr  6 02:26:17 2012
Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B12B21F863E for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri,  6 Apr 2012 02:26:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.444
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.444 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.275,  BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id f9FRIFenqMl2 for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri,  6 Apr 2012 02:26:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (mail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C918F21F8636 for <marf@ietf.org>; Fri,  6 Apr 2012 02:26:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=test; t=1333704375; bh=xt8BmjYWpNe6+sGF+DPBBwCdDu4knvGoyRhTU2kXvgQ=; l=363; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=i/YyjcCsNpCI5XW+flUF23Bo4kp9c+i44Cfu74iXp4XzJmzulQwi1XgO3Ef7GkWTV 7mQ6aENukzjerla44GhBjM0Sz1xIsejhjheDA/aDVLgR9mFMF/+Mw8vz8cyRSNEvSk eMTc11UWZyHZVbH9wyoGCs0kZIzVAVrkV/O+lnJQ=
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, 06 Apr 2012 11:26:15 +0200 id 00000000005DC048.000000004F7EB6B7.0000265C
Message-ID: <4F7EB6B6.7040301@tana.it>
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2012 11:26:14 +0200
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: marf@ietf.org
References: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C9AD2@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <20120405054433.3819.qmail@joyce.lan> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280CAD7A@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
In-Reply-To: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280CAD7A@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [marf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-marf-as-12.txt
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2012 09:26:17 -0000

On Fri 06/Apr/2012 11:23:52 +0200 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> 
> So this is now:
> 
> 5.1.  General Considerations
> 
>    1.  ARF report streams are established proactively between Report
>        Generators and Mailbox Providers.  Recommendations for preparing
>        to make that request are discussed in Section 4.1 of [RFC6449].

s/Mailbox Providers/mail operators/.


From vesely@tana.it  Fri Apr  6 02:26:21 2012
Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDEE721F8497 for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri,  6 Apr 2012 02:26:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.469
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.469 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.250,  BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fpKe25bXuZyJ for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri,  6 Apr 2012 02:26:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (mail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0342521F8655 for <marf@ietf.org>; Fri,  6 Apr 2012 02:26:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=test; t=1333704380; bh=cPdfXkI2xkmFjKGl28ZjNdIQdTVYqVieJXBfQP3oO6s=; l=1279; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=Lw6FP6bPaqC2kqO30BmwkvkY9WjRGPeo1PCEEr5UyE437qdmxjFtamMYOhZP+MPiu kNPX9z9ht5L6twsbkmR5syOdSXB2eDNgUTTX7tW9xQnyEVpWuczTyYauwIPMQKr78Y q0EzON/HZyuFO5QPwnRl/eWZRBAaACbE3xClObKU=
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, 06 Apr 2012 11:26:20 +0200 id 00000000005DC048.000000004F7EB6BC.00002675
Message-ID: <4F7EB6BB.3060702@tana.it>
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2012 11:26:19 +0200
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: marf@ietf.org
References: <20120330094043.29232.83839.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C27AD@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <4F7B3C86.8030200@qualcomm.com>	<4F7C7999.5090205@tana.it> <4F7C9592.3050007@qualcomm.com> <4F7CA085.1070403@tana.it> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C9AFC@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <4F7DD590.9000705@tana.it> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280CBE3E@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
In-Reply-To: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280CBE3E@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [marf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-marf-as-12.txt
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2012 09:26:21 -0000

On Fri 06/Apr/2012 11:20:35 +0200 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> From: Alessandro Vesely [mailto:vesely@tana.it]
>>>
>>>    1.  Rather than generating feedback reports themselves, MUAs SHOULD
>>>        make abuse reports back to their mailbox providers so that they
>>>        can generate and send ARF messages on behalf of end users. This
>>>        allows centralized processing and tracking of reports, and
>>>        provides training input to filtering systems.
>> 
>> As long as "make abuse reports back" is clear, that may work.  MUAs
>> could use any of John's taxonomy techniques[1], I don't know if it
>> could be acceptable to refer to that page...
> 
> I'll note here that there's no standard signaling mechanism for use
> between MUAs and ISPs to trigger reports.

Thanks.

>> For a nit, the I-D uses the term "report generator".  Its meaning is
>> obvious.  However, RFC 6449 uses "Feedback Provider" instead.  Would
>> the addition of a definition in Section 2 ease such references?  E.g.
>> something like so:
>> [...]
> 
> Actually changing "report generator" to "Feedback Provider" is a
> better idea because it makes the two documents even more consistent
> with each other.  So I'll do that as well.

Do you mean to extend Feedback Provider to also cover auth failures?

From msk@cloudmark.com  Fri Apr  6 07:18:23 2012
Return-Path: <msk@cloudmark.com>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A276321F8557 for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri,  6 Apr 2012 07:18:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.77
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.77 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.171, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cmfeo0CFV2iM for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri,  6 Apr 2012 07:18:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37E9C21F852B for <marf@ietf.org>; Fri,  6 Apr 2012 07:18:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EXCH-MBX901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::addf:849a:f71c:4a82]) by exch-htcas901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::2524:76b6:a865:539c%10]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Fri, 6 Apr 2012 07:18:22 -0700
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: "marf@ietf.org" <marf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [marf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-marf-as-12.txt
Thread-Index: AQHNDllZfGdC/tv0gEeE29FQyVLeOJaCmA9QgAdKBgD//7NqYIAB7TAA//+VqLCAAR6pgIAASh5AgAGGJwD//9weYA==
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2012 14:18:22 +0000
Message-ID: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280CCCE1@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C9AD2@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <20120405054433.3819.qmail@joyce.lan> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280CAD7A@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <4F7EB6B6.7040301@tana.it>
In-Reply-To: <4F7EB6B6.7040301@tana.it>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [67.160.203.60]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [marf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-marf-as-12.txt
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2012 14:18:23 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: marf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:marf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of A=
lessandro Vesely
> Sent: Friday, April 06, 2012 2:26 AM
> To: marf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [marf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-marf-as-12.txt
>=20
> On Fri 06/Apr/2012 11:23:52 +0200 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> >
> > So this is now:
> >
> > 5.1.  General Considerations
> >
> >    1.  ARF report streams are established proactively between Report
> >        Generators and Mailbox Providers.  Recommendations for preparing
> >        to make that request are discussed in Section 4.1 of [RFC6449].
>=20
> s/Mailbox Providers/mail operators/.

Actually no, it's Feedback Providers and Feedback Consumers, per RFC6449.


From msk@cloudmark.com  Fri Apr  6 07:20:35 2012
Return-Path: <msk@cloudmark.com>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC29821F8581 for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri,  6 Apr 2012 07:20:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.759
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.759 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.160, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8S18Cg1qmkpO for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri,  6 Apr 2012 07:20:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3E0321F856A for <marf@ietf.org>; Fri,  6 Apr 2012 07:20:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EXCH-MBX901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::addf:849a:f71c:4a82]) by exch-htcas901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::2524:76b6:a865:539c%10]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Fri, 6 Apr 2012 07:20:34 -0700
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: "marf@ietf.org" <marf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [marf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-marf-as-12.txt
Thread-Index: AQHNDllZfGdC/tv0gEeE29FQyVLeOJaCmA9QgAdKBgCAAXn8gIAAIVgAgAANDoD//4r0EIAB5XQA//+MCACAAYBkgP//3Emg
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2012 14:20:34 +0000
Message-ID: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280CCCF1@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <20120330094043.29232.83839.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C27AD@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <4F7B3C86.8030200@qualcomm.com>	<4F7C7999.5090205@tana.it> <4F7C9592.3050007@qualcomm.com> <4F7CA085.1070403@tana.it> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C9AFC@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <4F7DD590.9000705@tana.it> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280CBE3E@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <4F7EB6BB.3060702@tana.it>
In-Reply-To: <4F7EB6BB.3060702@tana.it>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [67.160.203.60]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [marf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-marf-as-12.txt
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2012 14:20:36 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: marf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:marf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of A=
lessandro Vesely
> Sent: Friday, April 06, 2012 2:26 AM
> To: marf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [marf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-marf-as-12.txt
>=20
> > Actually changing "report generator" to "Feedback Provider" is a
> > better idea because it makes the two documents even more consistent
> > with each other.  So I'll do that as well.
>=20
> Do you mean to extend Feedback Provider to also cover auth failures?

Sure.  Although the process in that case is automated, the definition still=
 applies.

From vesely@tana.it  Fri Apr  6 09:01:27 2012
Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B82E21F84E4 for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri,  6 Apr 2012 09:01:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.536
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.536 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.183,  BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vtdfe8nw4yh0 for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri,  6 Apr 2012 09:01:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DAF621F84DC for <marf@ietf.org>; Fri,  6 Apr 2012 09:01:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=test; t=1333728084; bh=hfmlt4wFZy21tWjvrVWOi6Iq0nPOfPRZKLeEzhwULn8=; l=665; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=Q6x1ifn2xQukGoBP9FDJSbaxZg3rTt9AGHbrhbismwbRa1nFjnDHrKXHeNXpPryDQ k2udOuLjg3JU7CaCaf5aDl0ughQ+m5+T5iCNXKeKMAWZ00PcHmmz5OcC7RJJ+WwJj2 rutJ0n7m300bUjWb3UhKr2TfgKKmYFvdTpJ0k9xY=
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, 06 Apr 2012 18:01:24 +0200 id 00000000005DC044.000000004F7F1354.00000CCF
Message-ID: <4F7F1354.6080004@tana.it>
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2012 18:01:24 +0200
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: marf@ietf.org
References: <20120330094043.29232.83839.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C27AD@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <4F7B3C86.8030200@qualcomm.com>	<4F7C7999.5090205@tana.it> <4F7C9592.3050007@qualcomm.com> <4F7CA085.1070403@tana.it> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C9AFC@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <4F7DD590.9000705@tana.it> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280CBE3E@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <4F7EB6BB.3060702@tana.it> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280CCCF1@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
In-Reply-To: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280CCCF1@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [marf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-marf-as-12.txt
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2012 16:01:27 -0000

On Fri 06/Apr/2012 17:54:51 +0200 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> From: ietf.org On Behalf Of Alessandro Vesely
>> 
>>> Actually changing "report generator" to "Feedback Provider" is a
>>> better idea because it makes the two documents even more consistent
>>> with each other.  So I'll do that as well.
>> 
>> Do you mean to extend Feedback Provider to also cover auth failures?
> 
> Sure.  Although the process in that case is automated, the
> definition still applies.

In that case, I see no contraindication.  Please go ahead.

You may want to import RFC 6449's "Glossary of Standard Terms",
instead of (or in addition to) redefining Mailbox Provider.

From wwwrun@rfc-editor.org  Fri Apr  6 14:25:53 2012
Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6ED8C11E80B0; Fri,  6 Apr 2012 14:25:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.12
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.12 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.120, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_93=0.6, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5cqUaxo1KpVj; Fri,  6 Apr 2012 14:25:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [IPv6:2001:1890:123a::1:2f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEFAA11E8098; Fri,  6 Apr 2012 14:25:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 2FFF3B1E021; Fri,  6 Apr 2012 14:13:33 -0700 (PDT)
To: ietf-announce@ietf.org, rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org
From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Message-Id: <20120406211333.2FFF3B1E021@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Fri,  6 Apr 2012 14:13:33 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: marf@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Subject: [marf] RFC 6590 on Redaction of Potentially Sensitive Data from Mail Abuse Reports
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2012 21:25:53 -0000

A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.

        
        RFC 6590

        Title:      Redaction of Potentially Sensitive Data 
                    from Mail Abuse Reports 
        Author:     J. Falk, Ed.,
                    M. Kucherawy, Ed.
        Status:     Standards Track
        Stream:     IETF
        Date:       April 2012
        Mailbox:    ietf@cybernothing.org, 
                    msk@cloudmark.com
        Pages:      8
        Characters: 15927
        Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso:   None

        I-D Tag:    draft-ietf-marf-redaction-08.txt

        URL:        http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6590.txt

Email messages often contain information that might be considered
private or sensitive, per either regulation or social norms.  When
such a message becomes the subject of a report intended to be shared
with other entities, the report generator may wish to redact or elide
the sensitive portions of the message.  This memo suggests one method
for doing so effectively.  [STANDARDS-TRACK]

This document is a product of the Messaging Abuse Reporting Format Working Group of the IETF.

This is now a Proposed Standard Protocol.

STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet standards track
protocol for the Internet community,and requests discussion and suggestions
for improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the Internet
Official Protocol Standards (STD 1) for the standardization state and
status of this protocol.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists.
To subscribe or unsubscribe, see
  http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
  http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist

For searching the RFC series, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcsearch.html.
For downloading RFCs, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html.

Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the
author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org.  Unless
specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for
unlimited distribution.


The RFC Editor Team
Association Management Solutions, LLC



From internet-drafts@ietf.org  Sun Apr  8 21:59:18 2012
Return-Path: <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3972621F863D; Sun,  8 Apr 2012 21:59:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.561
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.561 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.038, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id l2xJhJAzzU2Y; Sun,  8 Apr 2012 21:59:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C812C21F85DD; Sun,  8 Apr 2012 21:59:17 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: internet-drafts@ietf.org
To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.00
Message-ID: <20120409045917.5816.33088.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2012 21:59:17 -0700
Cc: marf@ietf.org
Subject: [marf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-marf-as-13.txt
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2012 04:59:18 -0000

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director=
ies. This draft is a work item of the Messaging Abuse Reporting Format Work=
ing Group of the IETF.

	Title           : Creation and Use of Email Feedback Reports: An Applicabi=
lity Statement for the Abuse Reporting Format (ARF)
	Author(s)       : J.D. Falk
                          M. Kucherawy
	Filename        : draft-ietf-marf-as-13.txt
	Pages           : 15
	Date            : 2012-04-08

   RFC 5965 defines an extensible, machine-readable format intended for
   mail operators to report feedback about received email to other
   parties.  This Applicability Statement describes common methods for
   utilizing this format for reporting both abuse and authentication
   failure events.  Mailbox Providers of any size, mail sending
   entities, and end users can use these methods as a basis to create
   procedures that best suit them.  Some related optional mechanisms are
   also discussed.


A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-marf-as-13.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-marf-as-13.txt


From msk@cloudmark.com  Sun Apr  8 22:04:07 2012
Return-Path: <msk@cloudmark.com>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9BB021F8630 for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun,  8 Apr 2012 22:04:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.74
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.74 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.141, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1kxRQK2PplRG for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun,  8 Apr 2012 22:04:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1708121F864E for <marf@ietf.org>; Sun,  8 Apr 2012 22:04:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EXCH-MBX901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::addf:849a:f71c:4a82]) by exch-htcas901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::2524:76b6:a865:539c%10]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Sun, 8 Apr 2012 22:04:06 -0700
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: "marf@ietf.org" <marf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [marf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-marf-as-13.txt
Thread-Index: AQHNFg2NvDWwfZKfokiJbdHrgLLvDJaR8CKw
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2012 05:04:05 +0000
Message-ID: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280CE2BE@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <20120409045917.5816.33088.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20120409045917.5816.33088.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [67.160.203.60]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [marf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-marf-as-13.txt
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2012 05:04:07 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: marf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:marf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of i=
nternet-drafts@ietf.org
> Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2012 9:59 PM
> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
> Cc: marf@ietf.org
> Subject: [marf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-marf-as-13.txt
>=20
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories. This draft is a work item of the Messaging Abuse Reporting
> Format Working Group of the IETF.
>=20
> 	Title           : Creation and Use of Email Feedback Reports: An
> Applicability Statement for the Abuse Reporting Format (ARF)
> 	Author(s)       : J.D. Falk
>                           M. Kucherawy
> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-marf-as-13.txt
> 	Pages           : 15
> 	Date            : 2012-04-08
>=20
>    RFC 5965 defines an extensible, machine-readable format intended for
>    mail operators to report feedback about received email to other
>    parties.  This Applicability Statement describes common methods for
>    utilizing this format for reporting both abuse and authentication
>    failure events.  Mailbox Providers of any size, mail sending
>    entities, and end users can use these methods as a basis to create
>    procedures that best suit them.  Some related optional mechanisms are
>    also discussed.

Various wordsmithing per AD review.  Hopefully we're good to go here... :-)

-MSK

From iesg-secretary@ietf.org  Tue Apr 10 11:08:31 2012
Return-Path: <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1D8011E8134; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 11:08:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.569
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.569 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.030, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kDq9IiXhpNBy; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 11:08:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B35811E810A; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 11:08:30 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.00
Message-ID: <20120410180830.14482.9208.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 11:08:30 -0700
Cc: marf@ietf.org
Subject: [marf] Last Call: <draft-ietf-marf-as-13.txt> (Creation and Use of Email	Feedback Reports: An Applicability Statement for the Abuse	Reporting Format (ARF)) to Proposed Standard
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 18:08:31 -0000

The IESG has received a request from the Messaging Abuse Reporting Format
WG (marf) to consider the following document:
- 'Creation and Use of Email Feedback Reports: An Applicability Statement
   for the Abuse Reporting Format (ARF)'
  <draft-ietf-marf-as-13.txt> as a Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-04-24. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


   RFC 5965 defines an extensible, machine-readable format intended for
   mail operators to report feedback about received email to other
   parties.  This Applicability Statement describes common methods for
   utilizing this format for reporting both abuse and authentication
   failure events.  Mailbox Providers of any size, mail sending
   entities, and end users can use these methods as a basis to create
   procedures that best suit them.  Some related optional mechanisms are
   also discussed.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-marf-as/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-marf-as/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

There is a downward reference to Informational document RFC 5598.

From wwwrun@rfc-editor.org  Fri Apr 13 11:02:50 2012
Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90D4311E8074; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 11:02:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.123
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.123 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.954, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HOST_MISMATCH_COM=0.311, J_CHICKENPOX_93=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JDumZfbjwmAH; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 11:02:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfcpa.amsl.com [12.22.58.47]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E97BF11E809C; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 11:02:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 00ED1B1E00E; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 11:02:00 -0700 (PDT)
To: ietf-announce@ietf.org, rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org
From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Message-Id: <20120413180201.00ED1B1E00E@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 11:02:00 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: marf@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Subject: [marf] RFC 6591 on Authentication Failure Reporting Using the Abuse Reporting Format
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 18:02:50 -0000

A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.

        
        RFC 6591

        Title:      Authentication Failure Reporting Using the 
                    Abuse Reporting Format 
        Author:     H. Fontana
        Status:     Standards Track
        Stream:     IETF
        Date:       April 2012
        Mailbox:    hilda@hfontana.com
        Pages:      16
        Characters: 32378
        Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso:   None

        I-D Tag:    draft-ietf-marf-authfailure-report-10.txt

        URL:        http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6591.txt

This memo registers an extension report type for the Abuse Reporting
Format (ARF), affecting multiple registries, for use in generating
receipt-time reports about messages that fail one or more email
message authentication checks. [STANDARDS-TRACK]

This document is a product of the Messaging Abuse Reporting Format Working Group of the IETF.

This is now a Proposed Standard Protocol.

STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet standards track
protocol for the Internet community,and requests discussion and suggestions
for improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the Internet
Official Protocol Standards (STD 1) for the standardization state and
status of this protocol.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists.
To subscribe or unsubscribe, see
  http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
  http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist

For searching the RFC series, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcsearch.html.
For downloading RFCs, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html.

Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the
author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org.  Unless
specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for
unlimited distribution.


The RFC Editor Team
Association Management Solutions, LLC



From msk@cloudmark.com  Fri Apr 13 12:14:26 2012
Return-Path: <msk@cloudmark.com>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14D1121F879D for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 12:14:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.541
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.541 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.058, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5fLdIbV4QJXZ for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 12:14:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.cloudmark.com (cmgw1.cloudmark.com [208.83.136.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D39121F8779 for <marf@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 12:14:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com ([72.5.239.25]) by mail.cloudmark.com with bizsmtp id xXEJ1i0020ZaKgw01XEJjn; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 12:14:24 -0700
X-CMAE-Match: 0
X-CMAE-Score: 0.00
X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=H85ZMpki c=1 sm=1 a=LdFkGDrDWH2mcjCZERnC4w==:17 a=LvckAehuu68A:10 a=7kMX6eKFbxAA:10 a=zutiEJmiVI4A:10 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=pGLkceISAAAA:8 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=aBl6_qVZLh-e_HCwMi4A:9 a=88_gob-PgkVewUbxR-kA:7 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=MSl-tDqOz04A:10 a=lZB815dzVvQA:10 a=QQTW8CIwiUlVY4Xl:21 a=HANvhiNlQJPq0I6t:21 a=LdFkGDrDWH2mcjCZERnC4w==:117
Received: from EXCH-MBX901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::addf:849a:f71c:4a82]) by exch-htcas901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::2524:76b6:a865:539c%10]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 12:14:18 -0700
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, "draft-ietf-marf-as.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-marf-as.all@tools.ietf.org>, "marf@ietf.org" <marf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Gen-ART review: draft-ietf-marf-as-13
Thread-Index: AQHNGZB+7c4QMrJmK06xaah5486YRZaZGYxA
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 19:14:17 +0000
Message-ID: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280F0958@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <CABkgnnXEnqmOcszw4KcXOcs_Z-C+zwhtC2tpdr73YQqjQmX3ZQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnXEnqmOcszw4KcXOcs_Z-C+zwhtC2tpdr73YQqjQmX3ZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [172.20.2.121]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cloudmark.com; s=default; t=1334344464; bh=ixXgRY7oSk6nqmOc1NHXp241tkmZCEZH7zkWbnSSGFw=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=lNWQNy7EQwJ1jwDo1SIAoo850XX1HyhgijlqEvax5e0S2LGQ/qbr/F88LqM4ATli3 EfzT7cOPlefklMD0UM7Tz5UvzlhVAqxxNySI9hhaiKLVEZ1UPGCuvtkJVEZRWieWu3 oTtkOVhnP0ZCGFyWYavahNA3GWg2Mn/C3WOhReT8=
Cc: "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [marf] Gen-ART review: draft-ietf-marf-as-13
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 19:14:26 -0000
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From barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com  Fri Apr 13 14:06:46 2012
Return-Path: <barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BA0011E80FD; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 14:06:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.808
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.808 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.169, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1262gd1AHtzB; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 14:06:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gy0-f172.google.com (mail-gy0-f172.google.com [209.85.160.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B8BB11E80E4; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 14:05:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ghbg16 with SMTP id g16so2131211ghb.31 for <multiple recipients>; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 14:05:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=ErQ/XrLI8AYnbwhhVW3jgJj5TMHmvNTbaAiqxrK6xU4=; b=gF7KnSNAsytTuTkpgQ2PXhZaT7GR3RLxMd7UkIF4a3FcKqFJBMGSFuY76TevGJ+Ifl BF7DFkUCZ3DiIKQS9YoMNN4ciz3vbUjgjZmyISxw4TvswYR5I/VTrW/g3yUfL36r4EQO ues9c5U9giC5QIGnrn/yJZeh0FoR/uotQ0IE9cn4P0Xwwv9tM83ciuGNac5SDl2I9QpF Abm1PzomdURyqA9WGAweB7C9oYjT11WKWzGuhnIP1HJMXDQSOIg8s/l4VVOb+NJnu6N+ H0+72pujmUgk/8/JR9ZxS6l2jpzCD3yfpf+e/XHhyf/cixHkrJ9OlziYxUJd4sGvhNiu C49w==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.100.233.35 with SMTP id f35mr169267anh.37.1334351145863; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 14:05:45 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com
Received: by 10.146.230.1 with HTTP; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 14:05:45 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280F0958@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <CABkgnnXEnqmOcszw4KcXOcs_Z-C+zwhtC2tpdr73YQqjQmX3ZQ@mail.gmail.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280F0958@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 17:05:45 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 7lyvmUc_jB9HRkd26nAQuk8EMO0
Message-ID: <CAC4RtVAkUQEQBP8ZMNszOUsH7pMwYfyUZppMV_sr3KmDg2ZRCg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>, "marf@ietf.org" <marf@ietf.org>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, "draft-ietf-marf-as.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-marf-as.all@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [marf] Gen-ART review: draft-ietf-marf-as-13
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 21:06:46 -0000

Just one comment here; leaving the rest for Murray:

Martin:
>> Reading through, this doesn't smell very much like an applicability
>> statement at all. =A0It has the distinct odor of a profile, or a set of
>> implementation/deployment/operational guidelines. =A0That might just be
>> me.

Murray:
> It is an Applicability Statement in the sense of Section 3.2 of RFC 2026.

Indeed, and the problem is that we've used stand-along Applicability
Statements so infrequently in recent years that we don't seem to know
what they are any more.  Worse, we've often started to call them
"profiles".

I think an Applicability Statement is a normative document that does
not in itself define a protocol, but specifies how to *apply* one or
more profiles to solve a particular (set of) problem(s) or to perform
a particular (set of) function(s).  It might well be that we should
start calling many of the "profiles" that we do "Applicability
Statements" instead.

The advantage here is that the AS is a standards-track document, and
will progress along the standards track just as a Technical
Specification would.  Making it Information loses that aspect.

Barry, document shepherd

From martin.thomson@gmail.com  Sat Apr 14 05:58:44 2012
Return-Path: <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC20B21F84F8; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 05:58:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.917
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.917 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.318, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id n-fSUiz5D6nm; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 05:58:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-bk0-f44.google.com (mail-bk0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CE2E21F84EF; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 05:58:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by bkuw5 with SMTP id w5so3598810bku.31 for <multiple recipients>; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 05:58:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=KzSf6gwAhdT8KZ/dBLe6kdAP9qOlRvgaFfcFL5KW32k=; b=AvNnzliwGMAO7aogjOfFAUueImvMttAhtaQtSPabwY+Ar1wCiQtv+8gFgoPy+sVtVS gFZPG/P3SdmlEPve6ORL718wOpS7zpk1lm7B7/bq6dIGu9xIczdl1hWmLqWQjevWNlYP APEi82Z0/a8NoD4xpeKhLaDkOIrmlbMbG46emu179wO+Oj/3bh3ME1kbntEZxn8kkxeh MGKfcqsYwhCsY9tc+/z89U+nxA3u9wiKW6v5hAHoaiCYjLQWtd4xAXcGo/fPi3qn19n2 C13q1HAkOd6sANzc/JE87MVIx1NmPH1ivdnTT9KFXSPkuCrggYjan+OitHM2Fa756h7i 9tUw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.204.128.65 with SMTP id j1mr1544414bks.74.1334408323107; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 05:58:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.204.165.66 with HTTP; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 05:58:43 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAC4RtVAkUQEQBP8ZMNszOUsH7pMwYfyUZppMV_sr3KmDg2ZRCg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABkgnnXEnqmOcszw4KcXOcs_Z-C+zwhtC2tpdr73YQqjQmX3ZQ@mail.gmail.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280F0958@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <CAC4RtVAkUQEQBP8ZMNszOUsH7pMwYfyUZppMV_sr3KmDg2ZRCg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 05:58:43 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnU=rbb3BjN0k6Wo3dzxC2YCgLiuTjvw8dzec6OR1X5vJg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 09:31:32 -0700
Cc: "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-marf-as.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-marf-as.all@tools.ietf.org>, "marf@ietf.org" <marf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [marf] Gen-ART review: draft-ietf-marf-as-13
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 12:58:45 -0000

On 13 April 2012 14:05, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> wrote:
> The advantage here is that the AS is a standards-track document, and
> will progress along the standards track just as a Technical
> Specification would. =C2=A0Making it Information loses that aspect.

It wouldn't make sense for this to be made informational.  There are
too many all-caps words.

From martin.thomson@gmail.com  Sat Apr 14 06:16:34 2012
Return-Path: <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77BC821F861F; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 06:16:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.891
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.891 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.292, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xwXgH4sxrURf; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 06:16:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-bk0-f44.google.com (mail-bk0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A36821F8611; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 06:16:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by bkuw5 with SMTP id w5so3605523bku.31 for <multiple recipients>; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 06:16:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=JF5mK4RNny8zvkiJ3+m9QVTq1vXCNBcetR+5dGXXSJs=; b=gS1NKOCL+0UP0ybbwCL36DsITv8qlOEW1Eua4J9i0FftTKoXpectlZCanHE68YtgSl 2Rbro07/912mvevmJ26WVraLrfAojVFRGTv8bLZxKbKe0D9G1CIUIBpsRam4mNPsb/6e 9FPybOJoe8Nrg2MJ3taYvcuUhGahGQUDwzZIZP0MGxQLNt+wlMukkflF8GBxQKt9XQ9M fH9I8tilnV0Te6RlYyGYiNNXlPI6vK7yTgP1/NqdKWQxZBmkDmjicM5n064wsEnt1WDd Nv7LZi4QX+MMa+DjmwtmnHBxGsXg0fDrPcJWmvrQxRjrifcKDPmermXg149YidaC8AMe 5EOg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.204.156.79 with SMTP id v15mr1551718bkw.37.1334409386085; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 06:16:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.204.165.66 with HTTP; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 06:16:26 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280F0958@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <CABkgnnXEnqmOcszw4KcXOcs_Z-C+zwhtC2tpdr73YQqjQmX3ZQ@mail.gmail.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280F0958@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 06:16:26 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnVW4gk51__4gTR_C9eJG5OpaN4PiDr7Rj+tw=bonqgJ_A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 09:31:32 -0700
Cc: "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>, "marf@ietf.org" <marf@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-marf-as.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-marf-as.all@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [marf] Gen-ART review: draft-ietf-marf-as-13
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 13:16:34 -0000

Look, this really doesn't bother me that much.  But I can't even
imagine what a sensible implementation would do for these two points.
I don't like 2119 language that I can't see how to comply with.

Maybe I'm just not imaginative enough.

On 13 April 2012 12:14, Murray S. Kucherawy <msk@cloudmark.com> wrote:
>> Section 6.1, point 1 cannot be an interoperability requirement if there
>> isn't a mechanism provided.
> Existing implementations generally support this capability, but they all =
have different ways of doing so. =C2=A0Thus, there's (currently) no standar=
d way to do it. =C2=A0Our ADs thus suggested the text that's there.

It's the unsolicited case that bothers me here.  Is there some sort of
general advice that can be given on how to implement this for an
unsolicited report? Or are these existing implementations so radically
different that is tricky?  (That would be interesting in and of
itself.)

>> Section 6.3, point 1 has the same complaint for the "SHOULD", though in
>> this case the softness of the "SHOULD" makes this more tolerable.
>
> The choice to deviate means the benefits described later in that point's =
text are lost. =C2=A0That's the tradeoff.

Again, I'm less concerned with the why, but the how.

--Martin

From vesely@tana.it  Tue Apr 17 05:32:07 2012
Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8069D21F855F for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 05:32:07 -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 ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vV-hHbHOX6Ih for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 05:32:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (mail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFE9121F84D3 for <marf@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 05:32:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=test; t=1334665921; bh=B6rx7Sl7HzZUSXJeWLWXMn/0LFzSwS96IAm2eev31HM=; l=2082; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:CC:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=ItfeXJoXP/MLNcfcL7R0TVYqZ4NJ77aBQejC8axsTQYSMeiDD4ljN58kJqZx1DVjh chenDLPeyF8VfcJZPyJN3cmRJLuOHtKZohDtvk5ylIpmyG1DEL+KExLF845x3y15sj wSMYRqLWCJs3ioVP8764eo8xzPuw/PXrRuHQSqAY=
Received: from [192.168.8.53] (bob75-8-88-169-117-39.fbx.proxad.net [88.169.117.39]) (AUTH: PLAIN 515, TLS: TLS1.0,256bits,RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 14:31:59 +0200 id 00000000005DC045.000000004F8D62C0.00007F9C
Message-ID: <4F8D62BC.5060908@tana.it>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 14:31:56 +0200
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120312 Thunderbird/11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
References: <CABkgnnXEnqmOcszw4KcXOcs_Z-C+zwhtC2tpdr73YQqjQmX3ZQ@mail.gmail.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280F0958@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <CABkgnnVW4gk51__4gTR_C9eJG5OpaN4PiDr7Rj+tw=bonqgJ_A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnVW4gk51__4gTR_C9eJG5OpaN4PiDr7Rj+tw=bonqgJ_A@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "marf@ietf.org" <marf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [marf] Gen-ART review: draft-ietf-marf-as-13
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 12:32:07 -0000

(apologies for possibly double post)
On Tue 17/Apr/2012 08:03:07 +0200 Martin Thomson wrote:
> On 13 April 2012 12:14, Murray S. Kucherawy <msk@cloudmark.com> wrote:
>>> Section 6.1, point 1 cannot be an interoperability requirement if there
>>> isn't a mechanism provided.
>> Existing implementations generally support this capability, but they all
>> have different ways of doing so.  Thus, there's (currently) no standard
>> way to do it.  Our ADs thus suggested the text that's there.
> 
> It's the unsolicited case that bothers me here.  Is there some sort of
> general advice that can be given on how to implement this for an
> unsolicited report? Or are these existing implementations so radically
> different that is tricky?  (That would be interesting in and of
> itself.)

One possibility for an FBL shop is to have the human-readable part of an ARF
report point to a web site that allows some auto-authentication, e.g. based
on the URL itself but possibly complemented with the IP address of the
client, assuming the visit may come from a company network.  That way,
Mailbox Providers can check that someone looked at the report, and illustrate
the capabilities of their FBL shop.

For 6.1/1 in particular, the report-sender could check 5XX reply codes and
suspend sending for YY time, where the values of XX and YY were acquired at
its interactive FBL shop.  In general, the relationship between the ESP and
the MP will turn into a sort of private agreement, more or less as described
in RFC 6449 --except that the ESP gets a prompt to sign up in the form of an
unsolicited report.

This seems to be a slowly emerging pattern.  Other bits related to 6.3/3 are
being put in place.  See e.g.,
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-06

Note that RIRs don't have the same standardizing power as the IETF.  This AS
thus plays a role in that framework, allowing that reporting pattern to
emerge a little bit more.  An emerged FBL pattern means experience which, in
turn, is needed before complete details can be fully standardized.

Hth

From msk@cloudmark.com  Thu Apr 19 11:16:35 2012
Return-Path: <msk@cloudmark.com>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A066321F8623 for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 11:16:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.562
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.562 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.036, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VEraaZMgK9Fl for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 11:16:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.cloudmark.com (cmgw1.cloudmark.com [208.83.136.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A44B21F85F6 for <marf@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 11:16:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com ([72.5.239.26]) by mail.cloudmark.com with bizsmtp id zuGs1i0010as01C01uGsBv; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 11:16:52 -0700
X-CMAE-Match: 0
X-CMAE-Score: 0.00
X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=fNu7LOme c=1 sm=1 a=QMZKka45TBd+hNGtXG2bIg==:17 a=LvckAehuu68A:10 a=HtTwlvHnwHcA:10 a=zutiEJmiVI4A:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=-r6GMu4DCRkKeGeBXdEA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=yMhMjlubAAAA:8 a=SSmOFEACAAAA:8 a=IpYKLPymXUTLBirq2SsA:9 a=gKO2Hq4RSVkA:10 a=UiCQ7L4-1S4A:10 a=hTZeC7Yk6K0A:10 a=QMZKka45TBd+hNGtXG2bIg==:117
Received: from EXCH-MBX901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::addf:849a:f71c:4a82]) by exch-htcas902.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::54de:dc60:5f3e:334%10]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 11:16:33 -0700
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: "marf@ietf.org" <marf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Reviewers for draft-kucherawy-marf-source-ports
Thread-Index: Ac0eWIzAWiByKHBVQYeTaXZAPo6wLA==
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 18:16:33 +0000
Message-ID: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FAF8D@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [172.20.2.121]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FAF8Dexchmbx901corpclo_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cloudmark.com; s=default; t=1334859412; bh=5bDCq/ecDVAwfw+DLE4Qsn3cHozaWWexahUzLAZmtNk=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=BY9thDNitS2yAiU7L8qPSy8MwiFdsYaqvdOOiWoMf4vWNzUAJHUOp/RQKFciReGhP SBipNcw4B2IK7mZvqyKu5+wnxpcGKLa0daWyeUy8Kcm5pdiBNuVrEJnlzgSFHE5KYe 3cJXXpSFokuQSFMiiVZCIFGC2HWlGkQlYin6ET74=
Subject: [marf] Reviewers for draft-kucherawy-marf-source-ports
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 18:16:35 -0000

--_000_9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FAF8Dexchmbx901corpclo_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hello MARF,

The above draft was mentioned during the (brief) meeting in Paris.  It is a=
 simple document that registers with IANA a RECOMMENDED field for ARF repor=
ts to include the port number from which the abusive action came.  This is =
encouraged practice in the IETF these days, as you can see from the documen=
t about logging that this one references.

It was decided in Paris to process it outside of MARF so that we could cont=
inue the process of winding down, since the draft is so simple.  Still, we =
need a few reviewers for the record.  Could we get a couple of volunteers?

Here's the datatracker link: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kuchera=
wy-marf-source-ports/

It's five pages, about two of which are typical RFC boilerplate.  Truly a q=
uick read.

If you've read it and agree with it, you can reply here and just say so.  O=
f course, if you have comments, those are also welcome.

Thanks,
-MSK


--_000_9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FAF8Dexchmbx901corpclo_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-micr=
osoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" =
xmlns:m=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns=3D"http:=
//www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dus-ascii"=
>
<meta name=3D"Generator" content=3D"Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
	{font-family:"Cambria Math";
	panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
	{font-family:Calibri;
	panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
	{margin:0in;
	margin-bottom:.0001pt;
	font-size:11.0pt;
	font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
	{mso-style-priority:99;
	color:blue;
	text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
	{mso-style-priority:99;
	color:purple;
	text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
	{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
	font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
	color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
	{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
	{size:8.5in 11.0in;
	margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
	{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext=3D"edit" spidmax=3D"1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext=3D"edit">
<o:idmap v:ext=3D"edit" data=3D"1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=3D"EN-US" link=3D"blue" vlink=3D"purple">
<div class=3D"WordSection1">
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">Hello MARF,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">The above draft was mentioned during the (brief) mee=
ting in Paris.&nbsp; It is a simple document that registers with IANA a REC=
OMMENDED field for ARF reports to include the port number from which the ab=
usive action came.&nbsp; This is encouraged
 practice in the IETF these days, as you can see from the document about lo=
gging that this one references.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">It was decided in Paris to process it outside of MAR=
F so that we could continue the process of winding down, since the draft is=
 so simple.&nbsp; Still, we need a few reviewers for the record.&nbsp; Coul=
d we get a couple of volunteers?<br>
<br>
Here&#8217;s the datatracker link: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-k=
ucherawy-marf-source-ports/<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">It&#8217;s five pages, about two of which are typica=
l RFC boilerplate.&nbsp; Truly a quick read.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">If you&#8217;ve read it and agree with it, you can r=
eply here and just say so.&nbsp; Of course, if you have comments, those are=
 also welcome.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><br>
Thanks,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">-MSK<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>

--_000_9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FAF8Dexchmbx901corpclo_--

From steve@wordtothewise.com  Thu Apr 19 11:49:46 2012
Return-Path: <steve@wordtothewise.com>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9006621F864B for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 11:49:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PXfytFpI3uo6 for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 11:49:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from m.wordtothewise.com (misc.wordtothewise.com [184.105.179.154]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CA4B21F866A for <marf@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 11:49:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by m.wordtothewise.com (Postfix, from userid 1003) id 7A7292EB3F; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 11:49:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from platter.wordtothewise.com (204.11.227.194.static.etheric.net [204.11.227.194]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: steve) by m.wordtothewise.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CC28D2EADE for <marf@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 11:49:42 -0700 (PDT)
From: Steve Atkins <steve@wordtothewise.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_96572BAD-F7AE-4969-94F6-CE6C43EC6F5D"
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 11:49:41 -0700
In-Reply-To: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FAF8D@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
To: marf@ietf.org
References: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FAF8D@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
Message-Id: <938CD663-D2D5-4E65-B3D4-B02424DC7124@wordtothewise.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257)
Subject: Re: [marf] Reviewers for draft-kucherawy-marf-source-ports
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 18:49:46 -0000

--Apple-Mail=_96572BAD-F7AE-4969-94F6-CE6C43EC6F5D
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=windows-1252


On Apr 19, 2012, at 11:16 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:

> Hello MARF,
> =20
> The above draft was mentioned during the (brief) meeting in Paris.  It =
is a simple document that registers with IANA a RECOMMENDED field for =
ARF reports to include the port number from which the abusive action =
came.  This is encouraged practice in the IETF these days, as you can =
see from the document about logging that this one references.
> =20
> It was decided in Paris to process it outside of MARF so that we could =
continue the process of winding down, since the draft is so simple.  =
Still, we need a few reviewers for the record.  Could we get a couple of =
volunteers?
>=20
> Here=92s the datatracker link: =
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kucherawy-marf-source-ports/
> =20
> It=92s five pages, about two of which are typical RFC boilerplate.  =
Truly a quick read.
> =20
> If you=92ve read it and agree with it, you can reply here and just say =
so.  Of course, if you have comments, those are also welcome.

It looks reasonable at first glance. But I have some comments.

MARF is intended for reporting sightings of email. This extension is =
intended to make reports of traffic from behind NATs able to =
differentiate between users behind a NAT. That implies that it's =
expected for legitimate email to be sent from behind a shared NAT. I =
wouldn't expect to see that in the wild, certainly not at a provider =
that's well enough set up that they're accepting ARF reports and keeping =
detailed access logs and so on - rather I'd expect that mail to be going =
through an authenticated smarthost, and no non-authenticated SMTP =
traffic being emitted from the NAT itself.

Do carrier-grade NATs in general use really log connections in enough =
detail that the source port is adequate to identify the user of the NAT? =
AIUI many of them cycle source ports almost immediately, with no =
persistent relationship with the user, so they'd need to persistently =
log every TCP connection every user made for this to be useful data.

For source port to be useful to the sender, even assuming they have NAT =
connection logs, the timestamp of the report is going to be much more =
critical than for previous ARF usage. Dynamically assigned IP addresses =
tend to last hours, dynamically assigned NAT mappings just seconds. We =
don't mention anything about timestamps in [ARF], other than to say it =
should be in RFC5322 format. Do we need to stress the need for NTP-level =
timing accuracy at every host involved, or is the mention of that in =
[LOG] enough?

[LOG] recommends UTC timestamps for everything. Do we want to encourage =
that for ARF too?

What about ident?

Cheers,
  Steve



--Apple-Mail=_96572BAD-F7AE-4969-94F6-CE6C43EC6F5D
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset=windows-1252

<html><head></head><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; =
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; =
"><br><div><div>On Apr 19, 2012, at 11:16 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy =
wrote:</div><br class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote =
type=3D"cite"><span class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"border-collapse: =
separate; font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: =
normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: =
normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; =
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; =
-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: =
0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: =
auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><div =
lang=3D"EN-US" link=3D"blue" vlink=3D"purple"><div class=3D"WordSection1" =
style=3D"page: WordSection1; "><div style=3D"margin-top: 0in; =
margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; font-size: =
11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; ">Hello =
MARF,<o:p></o:p></div><div style=3D"margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; =
margin-left: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: =
Calibri, sans-serif; "><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></div><div style=3D"margin-top: =
0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; =
font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; ">The above draft was =
mentioned during the (brief) meeting in Paris.&nbsp; It is a simple =
document that registers with IANA a RECOMMENDED field for ARF reports to =
include the port number from which the abusive action came.&nbsp; This =
is encouraged practice in the IETF these days, as you can see from the =
document about logging that this one references.<o:p></o:p></div><div =
style=3D"margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; =
margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, =
sans-serif; "><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></div><div style=3D"margin-top: 0in; =
margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; font-size: =
11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; ">It was decided in Paris to =
process it outside of MARF so that we could continue the process of =
winding down, since the draft is so simple.&nbsp; Still, we need a few =
reviewers for the record.&nbsp; Could we get a couple of =
volunteers?<br><br>Here=92s the datatracker link:<span =
class=3D"Apple-converted-space">&nbsp;</span><a =
href=3D"https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kucherawy-marf-source-ports=
/" style=3D"color: blue; text-decoration: underline; =
">https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kucherawy-marf-source-ports/</a><=
o:p></o:p></div><div style=3D"margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; =
margin-left: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: =
Calibri, sans-serif; "><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></div><div style=3D"margin-top: =
0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; =
font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; ">It=92s five pages, =
about two of which are typical RFC boilerplate.&nbsp; Truly a quick =
read.<o:p></o:p></div><div style=3D"margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; =
margin-left: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: =
Calibri, sans-serif; "><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></div><div style=3D"margin-top: =
0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; =
font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; ">If you=92ve read it =
and agree with it, you can reply here and just say so.&nbsp; Of course, =
if you have comments, those are also =
welcome.<o:p></o:p></div></div></div></span></blockquote><br></div><div>It=
 looks reasonable at first glance. But I have some =
comments.</div><div><br></div><div>MARF is intended for reporting =
sightings of email. This extension is intended to make reports of =
traffic from behind NATs able to differentiate between users behind a =
NAT. That implies that it's expected for legitimate email to be sent =
from behind a shared NAT. I wouldn't expect to see that in the wild, =
certainly not at a provider that's well enough set up that they're =
accepting ARF reports and keeping detailed access logs and so on - =
rather I'd expect that mail to be going through an authenticated =
smarthost, and no non-authenticated SMTP traffic being emitted from the =
NAT itself.</div><div><br></div><div>Do carrier-grade NATs in general =
use really log connections in enough detail that the source port is =
adequate to identify the user of the NAT? AIUI many of them cycle source =
ports almost immediately, with no persistent relationship with the user, =
so they'd need to persistently log every TCP connection every user made =
for this to be useful data.</div><div><br></div><div>For source port to =
be useful to the sender, even assuming they have NAT connection logs, =
the timestamp of the report is going to be much more critical than for =
previous ARF usage. Dynamically assigned IP addresses tend to last =
hours, dynamically assigned NAT mappings just seconds. We don't mention =
anything about timestamps in [ARF], other than to say it should be in =
RFC5322 format. Do we need to stress the need for NTP-level timing =
accuracy at every host involved, or is the mention of that in [LOG] =
enough?</div><div><br></div><div>[LOG] recommends UTC timestamps for =
everything. Do we want to encourage that for ARF =
too?</div><div><br></div><div>What about =
ident?</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers,</div><div>&nbsp; =
Steve</div><div><br></div><br></body></html>=

--Apple-Mail=_96572BAD-F7AE-4969-94F6-CE6C43EC6F5D--

From sklist@kitterman.com  Thu Apr 19 12:44:18 2012
Return-Path: <sklist@kitterman.com>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C2EF11E8088 for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 12:44:18 -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 ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JFDlboporV1D for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 12:44:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout02.controlledmail.com (mailout02.controlledmail.com [72.81.252.18]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECDE511E8087 for <marf@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 12:44:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout02.controlledmail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailout02.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C52420E40CC; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 15:44:17 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=kitterman.com; s=2007-00; t=1334864657; bh=YwR/fuL9mKa8hG4hcjuiFKhdLxRGaJRgpd4EjMEvKPg=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type; b=DTUKRGLepGGRczgEcbmP8nXI9Xl/JzCBk6AxYaRDXSbsCsKXCSCDZrQo92xtq2T2S qlASz8soNeyPZI8AarpxbBSs8ikr2Zndn8MC6XDx6MJNnLJBRE9czHN2BrvltsX6j2 pL1fXt3ztVauaO0bBpGkJAKtgYJVo3wz66QTvo9c=
Received: from scott-latitude-e6320.localnet (46.sub-97-164-126.myvzw.com [97.164.126.46]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailout02.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1DB4120E408F;  Thu, 19 Apr 2012 15:44:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
To: marf@ietf.org
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 15:43:51 -0400
Message-ID: <1478776.STKdLvcush@scott-latitude-e6320>
User-Agent: KMail/4.8.2 (Linux/3.2.0-23-generic-pae; KDE/4.8.2; i686; ; )
In-Reply-To: <938CD663-D2D5-4E65-B3D4-B02424DC7124@wordtothewise.com>
References: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FAF8D@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <938CD663-D2D5-4E65-B3D4-B02424DC7124@wordtothewise.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-AV-Checked: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
Subject: Re: [marf] Reviewers for draft-kucherawy-marf-source-ports
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 19:44:18 -0000

On Thursday, April 19, 2012 11:49:41 AM Steve Atkins wrote:
> [LOG] recommends UTC timestamps for everything. Do we want to encourage that
> for ARF too?

For interoperability purposes, it's sufficient if the TZ is recorded, I think 
that's sufficient.

Scott K

From msk@cloudmark.com  Thu Apr 19 16:19:12 2012
Return-Path: <msk@cloudmark.com>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A28FB21F858D for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 16:19:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.563
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.563 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.035, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aEo3teZPQvQy for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 16:19:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.cloudmark.com (cmgw1.cloudmark.com [208.83.136.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BEDC21F855B for <marf@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 16:19:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com ([72.5.239.25]) by mail.cloudmark.com with bizsmtp id zzK01i0010ZaKgw01zK0be; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 16:19:00 -0700
X-CMAE-Match: 0
X-CMAE-Score: 0.00
X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=RaES+iRv c=1 sm=1 a=LdFkGDrDWH2mcjCZERnC4w==:17 a=8Ubwy9MkvaUA:10 a=zutiEJmiVI4A:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=mjHVBCgkvyk6C1xD4aEA:9 a=PKryDCmY4RzTEXpJx2YA:7 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=yMhMjlubAAAA:8 a=SSmOFEACAAAA:8 a=AusslNopkySbTHuR1U4A:9 a=UaGMZB4kMHGruDwexcIA:7 a=gKO2Hq4RSVkA:10 a=UiCQ7L4-1S4A:10 a=hTZeC7Yk6K0A:10 a=LdFkGDrDWH2mcjCZERnC4w==:117
Received: from EXCH-MBX901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::addf:849a:f71c:4a82]) by exch-htcas901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::2524:76b6:a865:539c%10]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 16:19:00 -0700
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: "marf@ietf.org" <marf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Slight change to AS document
Thread-Index: Ac0egs0krUjVfWwfSsy8/BIcMuIQBg==
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 23:19:00 +0000
Message-ID: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FB672@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [172.22.1.156]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FB672exchmbx901corpclo_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cloudmark.com; s=default; t=1334877540; bh=tWSOE3PkQEM79cv8p5Pavk+dFB1VdG+NolyYSFB1IGk=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=sVRLgJKJK3u3j9fpArpVABEYWPh9b7CkZopFB3UuNjSTQUvqVsx7CujT0wbLRYuDC GyQdbH8kdysupNWpJVoj0zVUfcrQrWxFW6KjSGdD3cXnS34D1px5XKTlkKER/737Ef 9IHjeQB9Ib8t2KbFLHQ6f1j31Uzlj8WyYLM4WsZc=
Subject: [marf] Slight change to AS document
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 23:19:12 -0000

--_000_9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FB672exchmbx901corpclo_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Fellow MARFers,

IESG Evaluation of the Applicability Statement draft has begun.  One AD has=
 provided some feedback that's led me in the direction of merging Sections =
4 and 5, so that there's one top-level section about solicited reports and =
one about unsolicited reports.  The current arrangement makes it look like =
we spent a lot less time on unsolicited reports, when in fact we have but t=
here's not as much to say.  I believe the proposed new arrangement improves=
 that somewhat.  There are a couple of other minor text changes as a result=
 of the Gen-ART review, but this is the most substantive change.

So I plan to do that in the very near future (i.e., late tomorrow) unless s=
omeone thinks that's a really terrible idea.

-MSK

--_000_9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FB672exchmbx901corpclo_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-micr=
osoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" =
xmlns:m=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns=3D"http:=
//www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dus-ascii"=
>
<meta name=3D"Generator" content=3D"Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
	{font-family:"Cambria Math";
	panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
	{font-family:Calibri;
	panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
	{margin:0in;
	margin-bottom:.0001pt;
	font-size:11.0pt;
	font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
	{mso-style-priority:99;
	color:blue;
	text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
	{mso-style-priority:99;
	color:purple;
	text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
	{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
	font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
	color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
	{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
	{size:8.5in 11.0in;
	margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
	{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext=3D"edit" spidmax=3D"1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext=3D"edit">
<o:idmap v:ext=3D"edit" data=3D"1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=3D"EN-US" link=3D"blue" vlink=3D"purple">
<div class=3D"WordSection1">
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">Fellow MARFers,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">IESG Evaluation of the Applicability Statement draft=
 has begun.&nbsp; One AD has provided some feedback that&#8217;s led me in =
the direction of merging Sections 4 and 5, so that there&#8217;s one top-le=
vel section about solicited reports and one about unsolicited
 reports.&nbsp; The current arrangement makes it look like we spent a lot l=
ess time on unsolicited reports, when in fact we have but there&#8217;s not=
 as much to say.&nbsp; I believe the proposed new arrangement improves that=
 somewhat.&nbsp; There are a couple of other minor text
 changes as a result of the Gen-ART review, but this is the most substantiv=
e change.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">So I plan to do that in the very near future (i.e., =
late tomorrow) unless someone thinks that&#8217;s a really terrible idea.<o=
:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">-MSK<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>

--_000_9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FB672exchmbx901corpclo_--

From msk@cloudmark.com  Thu Apr 19 16:26:34 2012
Return-Path: <msk@cloudmark.com>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FDDC21E8013 for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 16:26:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.564
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.564 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.034, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9vlyNZrZhaCx for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 16:26:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.cloudmark.com (cmgw1.cloudmark.com [208.83.136.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D31C711E8073 for <marf@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 16:26:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com ([72.5.239.26]) by mail.cloudmark.com with bizsmtp id zzSf1i0010as01C01zSfln; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 16:26:39 -0700
X-CMAE-Match: 0
X-CMAE-Score: 0.00
X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=fNu7LOme c=1 sm=1 a=QMZKka45TBd+hNGtXG2bIg==:17 a=8Ubwy9MkvaUA:10 a=TvhglxwP5TMA:10 a=zutiEJmiVI4A:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=kUBMJ0F_5hXGKQYAAeAA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=lZB815dzVvQA:10 a=yMhMjlubAAAA:8 a=SSmOFEACAAAA:8 a=BC6Nv4ANFxzY6dn1clsA:9 a=xAcjfyPSqR5FP-P_kbkA:7 a=gKO2Hq4RSVkA:10 a=UiCQ7L4-1S4A:10 a=hTZeC7Yk6K0A:10 a=QMZKka45TBd+hNGtXG2bIg==:117
Received: from EXCH-MBX901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::addf:849a:f71c:4a82]) by exch-htcas902.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::54de:dc60:5f3e:334%10]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 16:26:20 -0700
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: Steve Atkins <steve@wordtothewise.com>, "marf@ietf.org" <marf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [marf] Reviewers for draft-kucherawy-marf-source-ports
Thread-Index: Ac0eWIzAWiByKHBVQYeTaXZAPo6wLAAP01CAAAU64KA=
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 23:26:20 +0000
Message-ID: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FB6A1@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FAF8D@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <938CD663-D2D5-4E65-B3D4-B02424DC7124@wordtothewise.com>
In-Reply-To: <938CD663-D2D5-4E65-B3D4-B02424DC7124@wordtothewise.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [172.22.1.156]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FB6A1exchmbx901corpclo_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cloudmark.com; s=default; t=1334877999; bh=9H0BRnEIYuInuaykHvkFMEP+J8PeiUjwRIV7DypWuRY=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=EVBf/l9Uiy2RJ5tzL8eu1s8XGeaciEKZu8V28i+NoRRxIrsq5/PP+GUcHNOp2qpsP qGcar2Mnq70bgyx0CFfh8bqVEbMTrIESdvPNZN5rRKmH99ZOSSsRMhvJUl6tZi5JHZ WY/QwdyRYKm0+EZi+/0GuHpGyY/shayC6KyzL4uk=
Subject: Re: [marf] Reviewers for draft-kucherawy-marf-source-ports
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 23:26:34 -0000

--_000_9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FB6A1exchmbx901corpclo_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Comments inline.

From: marf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:marf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ste=
ve Atkins
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 11:50 AM
To: marf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [marf] Reviewers for draft-kucherawy-marf-source-ports

It looks reasonable at first glance. But I have some comments.

MARF is intended for reporting sightings of email. This extension is intend=
ed to make reports of traffic from behind NATs able to differentiate betwee=
n users behind a NAT. That implies that it's expected for legitimate email =
to be sent from behind a shared NAT. I wouldn't expect to see that in the w=
ild, certainly not at a provider that's well enough set up that they're acc=
epting ARF reports and keeping detailed access logs and so on - rather I'd =
expect that mail to be going through an authenticated smarthost, and no non=
-authenticated SMTP traffic being emitted from the NAT itself.

[MSK: That's probably generally true, but I'd imagine it's not universally =
true.  For the cases where it's not, the data reported by this extension he=
ader field might prove useful.]

Do carrier-grade NATs in general use really log connections in enough detai=
l that the source port is adequate to identify the user of the NAT? AIUI ma=
ny of them cycle source ports almost immediately, with no persistent relati=
onship with the user, so they'd need to persistently log every TCP connecti=
on every user made for this to be useful data.

[MSK: This is what Section 3 of [LOG] advocates.  We're simply matching wha=
t they're doing.]

For source port to be useful to the sender, even assuming they have NAT con=
nection logs, the timestamp of the report is going to be much more critical=
 than for previous ARF usage. Dynamically assigned IP addresses tend to las=
t hours, dynamically assigned NAT mappings just seconds. We don't mention a=
nything about timestamps in [ARF], other than to say it should be in RFC532=
2 format. Do we need to stress the need for NTP-level timing accuracy at ev=
ery host involved, or is the mention of that in [LOG] enough?

[MSK: We could certainly repeat that advice, or stress the importance of th=
at part of [LOG].]

[LOG] recommends UTC timestamps for everything. Do we want to encourage tha=
t for ARF too?

[MSK: I agree with Scott; email date format captures enough information to =
convert to UTC if needed.  We could say that the report generator MAY conve=
rt the ARF date field, whatever it's called (can't recall), in UTC to enabl=
e quicker log correlation.]

What about ident?

[MSK: Does anyone still use that?]

Cheers,
  Steve



--_000_9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FB6A1exchmbx901corpclo_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-micr=
osoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" =
xmlns:m=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns=3D"http:=
//www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dus-ascii"=
>
<meta name=3D"Generator" content=3D"Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
	{font-family:"Cambria Math";
	panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
	{font-family:Calibri;
	panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
	{font-family:Tahoma;
	panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
	{margin:0in;
	margin-bottom:.0001pt;
	font-size:12.0pt;
	font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
	{mso-style-priority:99;
	color:blue;
	text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
	{mso-style-priority:99;
	color:purple;
	text-decoration:underline;}
span.apple-style-span
	{mso-style-name:apple-style-span;}
span.apple-converted-space
	{mso-style-name:apple-converted-space;}
span.EmailStyle19
	{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
	font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
	color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
	{mso-style-type:export-only;
	font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
	{size:8.5in 11.0in;
	margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
	{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext=3D"edit" spidmax=3D"1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext=3D"edit">
<o:idmap v:ext=3D"edit" data=3D"1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=3D"EN-US" link=3D"blue" vlink=3D"purple">
<div class=3D"WordSection1">
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D">Comments inline.<o:p></o:=
p></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span><=
/p>
<div style=3D"border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in =
4.0pt">
<div>
<div style=3D"border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in =
0in 0in">
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><b><span style=3D"font-size:10.0pt;font-family:&quot=
;Tahoma&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;">From:</span></b><span style=3D"font-s=
ize:10.0pt;font-family:&quot;Tahoma&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"> marf-bou=
nces@ietf.org [mailto:marf-bounces@ietf.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Steve Atkins<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, April 19, 2012 11:50 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> marf@ietf.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [marf] Reviewers for draft-kucherawy-marf-source-ports<=
o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">It looks reasonable at first glance. But I have some=
 comments.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">MARF is intended for reporting sightings of email. T=
his extension is intended to make reports of traffic from behind NATs able =
to differentiate between users behind a NAT. That implies that it's expecte=
d for legitimate email to be sent
 from behind a shared NAT. I wouldn't expect to see that in the wild, certa=
inly not at a provider that's well enough set up that they're accepting ARF=
 reports and keeping detailed access logs and so on - rather I'd expect tha=
t mail to be going through an authenticated
 smarthost, and no non-authenticated SMTP traffic being emitted from the NA=
T itself.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"color:#1F497D"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></spa=
n></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D">[MSK: That&#8217;s probab=
ly generally true, but I&#8217;d imagine it&#8217;s not universally true.&n=
bsp; For the cases where it&#8217;s not, the data reported by this extensio=
n header field
 might prove useful.]<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&=
nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbs=
p;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&=
nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">Do carrier-grade NATs in general use really log conn=
ections in enough detail that the source port is adequate to identify the u=
ser of the NAT? AIUI many of them cycle source ports almost immediately, wi=
th no persistent relationship with
 the user, so they'd need to persistently log every TCP connection every us=
er made for this to be useful data.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span><=
/p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D">[MSK: This is what Sectio=
n 3 of [LOG] advocates.&nbsp; We&#8217;re simply matching what they&#8217;r=
e doing.]<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">For source port to be useful to the sender, even ass=
uming they have NAT connection logs, the timestamp of the report is going t=
o be much more critical than for previous ARF usage. Dynamically assigned I=
P addresses tend to last hours, dynamically
 assigned NAT mappings just seconds. We don't mention anything about timest=
amps in [ARF], other than to say it should be in RFC5322 format. Do we need=
 to stress the need for NTP-level timing accuracy at every host involved, o=
r is the mention of that in [LOG]
 enough?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"color:#1F497D"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></spa=
n></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D">[MSK: We could certainly =
repeat that advice, or stress the importance of that part of [LOG].]<o:p></=
o:p></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span><=
/p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">[LOG] recommends UTC timestamps for everything. Do w=
e want to encourage that for ARF too?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"color:#1F497D"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></spa=
n></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D">[MSK: I agree with Scott;=
 email date format captures enough information to convert to UTC if needed.=
&nbsp; We could say that the report generator MAY convert the
 ARF date field, whatever it&#8217;s called (can&#8217;t recall), in UTC to=
 enable quicker log correlation.]<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"color:#1F497D"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></spa=
n></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">What about ident?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"color:#1F497D"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></spa=
n></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D">[MSK: Does anyone still u=
se that?]<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span><=
/p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">Cheers,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">&nbsp; Steve<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>

--_000_9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FB6A1exchmbx901corpclo_--

From sklist@kitterman.com  Thu Apr 19 16:27:19 2012
Return-Path: <sklist@kitterman.com>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D9A011E80BB for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 16:27:19 -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 ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5sMKiiFxx9eH for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 16:27:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout03.controlledmail.com (mailout03.controlledmail.com [208.43.65.50]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA9D511E8073 for <marf@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 16:27:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout03.controlledmail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailout03.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08B3FD0404C; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 18:27:18 -0500 (CDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=kitterman.com; s=2007-00; t=1334878038; bh=fzhTs+GQd1PgBhx9EvmkjzmcwugqDz+aYFFv+cMu2Kc=; h=References:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Subject:From:Date:To:Message-ID; b=bny2D1cfqx0ma8RA9MKi6sY3+enHODdj8OF529RLV5fHfypzbSbJpz7o6P0FzRh/e EiFLmbf3QSJf5/RsKAiHl1K+lpE774j75kq2CO+nqvVXo3XRr6QBsDoZmFpM5tMLPb Whhi22eu+VwDy9CNos0eU7VumlfVrM/nBgQG6Wak=
Received: from 60.sub-97-164-75.myvzw.com (60.sub-97-164-75.myvzw.com [97.164.75.60]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailout03.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 413D3D0404B;  Thu, 19 Apr 2012 18:27:17 -0500 (CDT)
References: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FB672@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android
In-Reply-To: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FB672@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 19:27:23 -0400
To: "marf@ietf.org" <marf@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <81ce01ab-73b2-42f3-aaad-d3d7d7f78349@email.android.com>
X-AV-Checked: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
Subject: Re: [marf] Slight change to AS document
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 23:27:19 -0000

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com> wrote:

>Fellow MARFers,
>
>IESG Evaluation of the Applicability Statement draft has begun.  One AD
>has provided some feedback that's led me in the direction of merging
>Sections 4 and 5, so that there's one top-level section about solicited
>reports and one about unsolicited reports.  The current arrangement
>makes it look like we spent a lot less time on unsolicited reports,
>when in fact we have but there's not as much to say.  I believe the
>proposed new arrangement improves that somewhat.  There are a couple of
>other minor text changes as a result of the Gen-ART review, but this is
>the most substantive change.
>
>So I plan to do that in the very near future (i.e., late tomorrow)
>unless someone thinks that's a really terrible idea.

I'd have to see the text to know. I think it's very important to keep the distinction between the two concepts.

Scott K

From johnl@iecc.com  Thu Apr 19 16:33:16 2012
Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.com>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44E6921E801F for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 16:33:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -111.002
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-111.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.197, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RBScaFtXPuuj for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 16:33:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49E3421E801B for <marf@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 16:33:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 34866 invoked from network); 19 Apr 2012 23:33:13 -0000
Received: from leila.iecc.com (64.57.183.34) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 19 Apr 2012 23:33:13 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:vbr-info; s=4f90a0b9.xn--9vv.k1204; i=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=uG7NrNKx513wKG32ouy7CH4nyRqRK+zmqXfzAdx9+HU=; b=SvFexQByRmAzx9+v3shPwb+PUsQH1veGcRgSDRyOq+IuyMdpgB5D3KgF8PbgEaczd6PDmwYSetiZ6CJ6RdT+WzeRJWKFJevg3NUGQwymMh8q1VgZY33aTh3vRXRto9xiVYPjXiivbDFcrtsguFQxTcSxdezzDU1k8GHyd0772DY=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:vbr-info; s=4f90a0b9.xn--9vv.k1204; olt=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=uG7NrNKx513wKG32ouy7CH4nyRqRK+zmqXfzAdx9+HU=; b=BGuTPOI3g7Ul28fu+c2XvMoNbnO8N9lmMB0EQz7TZ+nxeeJsb4K9IMrBP/N2SVRSbLEkWddX6yEqfs4j13Jq7W/BTVD0eRLYYXyMunkh9VW6FV3r/ddF6r4fMCnIDVFA23e6w7RSoJ2HZpEjH39IZXo8J5VuLebM6v+Dkln5VN0=
VBR-Info: md=iecc.com; mc=all; mv=dwl.spamhaus.org
Date: 19 Apr 2012 23:32:51 -0000
Message-ID: <20120419233251.75775.qmail@joyce.lan>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: marf@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <938CD663-D2D5-4E65-B3D4-B02424DC7124@wordtothewise.com>
Organization: 
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [marf] Reviewers for draft-kucherawy-marf-source-ports
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 23:33:16 -0000

Remember that we didn't make up this port logging stuff.  It's in RFC 6302.

>That implies that it's expected for legitimate email to be sent from behind a shared
>NAT. I wouldn't expect to see that in the wild

I believe that it's already happening in parts of Asia.  Also, I
expect there are plenty of places where mail leaks out from a web farm
or something else behind a NAT that's not primarily a mail server.

>Do carrier-grade NATs in general use really log connections in enough detail that the
>source port is adequate to identify the user of the NAT?

Combined with the time stamp, it should be.  I agree that accurate time stamps are
important, but they already are for tracking down stuff on busy systems.

>What about ident?

It's hard to see how that would work without making NAT an order of
magnitude grosser than it is now, doing DPI on the incoming stream on
port 113 to figure out which host behind the NAT to route it to.  Or did
you mean that the NAT would handle port 113 requests itself?

R's,
John

From msk@cloudmark.com  Thu Apr 19 16:34:54 2012
Return-Path: <msk@cloudmark.com>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1968711E80CC for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 16:34:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.565
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.565 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.034, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UYDEraKtV65F for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 16:34:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.cloudmark.com (cmgw1.cloudmark.com [208.83.136.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70F7911E8073 for <marf@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 16:34:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com ([72.5.239.25]) by mail.cloudmark.com with bizsmtp id zzbB1i0010ZaKgw01zbBnq; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 16:35:11 -0700
X-CMAE-Match: 0
X-CMAE-Score: 0.00
X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=fNu7LOme c=1 sm=1 a=LdFkGDrDWH2mcjCZERnC4w==:17 a=8Ubwy9MkvaUA:10 a=GKn7ffktOk8A:10 a=zutiEJmiVI4A:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=LqCzzTgQAAAA:8 a=AWXrQUyTwTMm0wJACsAA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=eiNWTRxyE8oA:10 a=lZB815dzVvQA:10 a=LdFkGDrDWH2mcjCZERnC4w==:117
Received: from EXCH-MBX901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::addf:849a:f71c:4a82]) by exch-htcas901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::2524:76b6:a865:539c%10]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 16:34:52 -0700
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: "marf@ietf.org" <marf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [marf] Slight change to AS document
Thread-Index: Ac0egs0krUjVfWwfSsy8/BIcMuIQBgAO9gyAAA5ry8A=
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 23:34:51 +0000
Message-ID: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FB6E1@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FB672@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <81ce01ab-73b2-42f3-aaad-d3d7d7f78349@email.android.com>
In-Reply-To: <81ce01ab-73b2-42f3-aaad-d3d7d7f78349@email.android.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [172.22.1.156]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cloudmark.com; s=default; t=1334878511; bh=hF85Bb2uc8MBdl/TudNRx6bMM8tvM3G69g+IzDd8ZjY=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=uA2BjYP2YkgYPMPDcZq2SYl588hJ6KPkzWUNuaxOH0Tbp6k0MjFE08LlTp4xVKlKt 74U8Ui02xbbQLLfPaxt1pJA+uJYXOS66sj0b8UZVDURpjDS9B1io6TXFqEiEsl/Kqs xIA3EdxGWPoTTCu9oSYO1+HUbu2NfPAYhwp12kv0=
Subject: Re: [marf] Slight change to AS document
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 23:34:54 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: marf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:marf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of S=
cott Kitterman
> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 4:27 PM
> To: marf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [marf] Slight change to AS document
>=20
> I'd have to see the text to know. I think it's very important to keep
> the distinction between the two concepts.

http://www.blackops.org/~msk/draft-ietf-marf-as.html


From msk@cloudmark.com  Thu Apr 19 16:45:28 2012
Return-Path: <msk@cloudmark.com>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12E1811E80C9 for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 16:45:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.565
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.565 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.034, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lyWEutQJ+02T for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 16:45:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.cloudmark.com (cmgw1.cloudmark.com [208.83.136.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA8EA11E80C1 for <marf@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 16:45:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com ([72.5.239.26]) by mail.cloudmark.com with bizsmtp id zzlY1i0010as01C01zlYq1; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 16:45:38 -0700
X-CMAE-Match: 0
X-CMAE-Score: 0.00
X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=fNu7LOme c=1 sm=1 a=QMZKka45TBd+hNGtXG2bIg==:17 a=8Ubwy9MkvaUA:10 a=qZODYEWQ6tEA:10 a=zutiEJmiVI4A:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=BIjOymf5Ok5HHdBGvR8A:9 a=oV2dLa9RXYXS-As4fx4A:7 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=lZB815dzVvQA:10 a=ttoJ-aqiUlQf1udg:21 a=oHdmo-jlQlrfHaJv:21 a=QMZKka45TBd+hNGtXG2bIg==:117
Received: from EXCH-MBX901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::addf:849a:f71c:4a82]) by exch-htcas902.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::54de:dc60:5f3e:334%10]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 16:45:13 -0700
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>, "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-kucherawy-marf-source-ports-01
Thread-Index: AQHNHnGo3y/JM+gioU2w2dPJsskiY5aizWlw
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 23:45:13 +0000
Message-ID: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FB707@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120419130040.0b4ee328@elandnews.com>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120419130040.0b4ee328@elandnews.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [172.22.1.156]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cloudmark.com; s=default; t=1334879138; bh=KHVWObgYxzM7l4Ml596mRzEO8ic7ARdPPdbrumaMwhw=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=KnxJ+k0FaEvx3CJZVpG2QNybc/5e7/lkrfUnw3kDeorxwOwz20uzVHrViOkGzIr1h ZHt2mQR9fMRBWU0SK4RHTmU2P3P4tJoIThZV8SlVfbNiVs1ZTGRZzDMsxhwU6Vtlh9 /pSMgLnRqEd//UdyCQEI6EF1WytrMP4+8UVTo8G8=
Cc: "draft-kucherawy-marf-source-ports.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-kucherawy-marf-source-ports.all@tools.ietf.org>, "marf@ietf.org" <marf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [marf] [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of	draft-kucherawy-marf-source-ports-01
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 23:45:28 -0000

Hi SM, thanks for the review!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org=
] On Behalf Of S Moonesamy
> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 2:15 PM
> To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
> Cc: draft-kucherawy-marf-source-ports.all@tools.ietf.org; marf@ietf.org
> Subject: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-kucherawy-marf-source-
> ports-01
>=20
> Minor issues:
>=20
> In Section 3:
>=20
>    "A new ARF reporting field called "Source-Port" is defined.  When
>     present in a report, it MUST contain the TCP or UDP source port
>     matching the "Source-IP" field in the same report, thereby describing
>     completely the origin of the abuse incident."
>=20
> UDP is not used for SMTP.  It's easier just to remove "TCP or UDP".

You're right about UDP.  I'd prefer to leave TCP in, however.

>    "When any report is generated that includes the "Source-IP" reporting
>     field, this field SHOULD also be present."
>=20
> It's difficult to tell when not to do the above.  I suggest replacing
> SHOULD with RECOMMENDED:
>=20
>    it is RECOMMENDED to add this header field.

I think these are semantically the same.  We're still left with the questio=
n, "When would you not?"  The answer is "When you don't have it," I suppose=
.  I'll reword accordingly.

> In the Security Considerations section, I suggest referring to RFC 6302.

Good idea; done.

> Nits:
>=20
> In the Abstract:
>=20
>    "This document registers an additional header field for use in Abuse
>     Reporting Format reports to permit the identification of the source
>     port of the connection involved in an abuse incident."
>=20
> The sentence describes a registration and what the header field does.
> I suggest breaking the sentence into two parts or keeping it easy:
>=20
>     This document defines an additional header field for use in Abuse
>     Reporting Format reports to permit the identification of the source
>     port of the connection involved in an abuse incident.

Done.

> In the Introduction Section:
>=20
>    "[ARF] defined the Abuse Reporting Format, a new header message format
>     for use in reporting incidents of email abuse."
>=20
> I suggest removing "new" as it won't be new in a year or two.  "header
> message format" is confusing.  I'll suggest:
>=20
>     [ARF] defined the Abuse Reporting Format, an extensible format for
>     Email Feedback Reports.  These reports are used used to report incide=
nts
>     of email abuse.  [ARF] was extended by ...

Done.

>    "Although those specifications gave the capability to include
>     the source IP address in the report, the source port was not
>     included
>=20
>   I suggest:
>=20
>    These specifications provided for the source IP address to be included
>    in a report. As explained in [LOG], the deployment of IP address
>    sharing techniques requires the source port values to be included in
>    reports if unambiguous identification of the origin of abuse is to be
>    achieved.

OK.

>    "Accordingly, this memo registers an ARF reporting field to contain
>     this information and provides guidance for its use."
>=20
> I suggest:
>=20
>    This document defines ARF reporting field to specify the source
>    port.
>=20
> I don't see much guidance in the draft.

There's some in the next version, based on yours and other feedback.  :-)

> The reference to I-D.IETF-MARF-AUTHFAILURE-REPORT should be updated to
> RFC 5691.

Already done in my copy, but yes.

> In Section 3:
>=20
>    'A new ARF reporting field called "Source-Port" is defined.'
>=20
> That should be header field (see Section 3.2 of RFC 5965).  I gather
> that the intent is to make this an optional header field.  I suggest
> specifying that Section 3.2 is being updated.  That should also be done
> for Section 3.1 of RFC 6591.

I haven't seen specific section call-outs done in an updating document befo=
re, only the "Updates" stuff on the title page.  Is this necessary?

> In Section 4:
>=20
>    "Description:  TCP or UDP source port from which the reported
>       connection originated"
>=20
> I suggest removing "TCP or UDP".

Removed "or UDP".

Thanks again,

-MSK


From steve@wordtothewise.com  Thu Apr 19 17:01:25 2012
Return-Path: <steve@wordtothewise.com>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2886311E80CE for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 17:01:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2qJdBMCf6iDN for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 17:01:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from m.wordtothewise.com (misc.wordtothewise.com [184.105.179.154]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89ACA11E80CB for <marf@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 17:01:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by m.wordtothewise.com (Postfix, from userid 1003) id 6764D2EB25; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 17:01:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from platter.wordtothewise.com (204.11.227.194.static.etheric.net [204.11.227.194]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: steve) by m.wordtothewise.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5A9622EAE2 for <marf@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 17:01:21 -0700 (PDT)
From: Steve Atkins <steve@wordtothewise.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_EBD53B96-46FF-48D0-AB67-498CDCB17A6D"
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 17:01:20 -0700
In-Reply-To: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FB6A1@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
To: marf@ietf.org
References: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FAF8D@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <938CD663-D2D5-4E65-B3D4-B02424DC7124@wordtothewise.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FB6A1@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
Message-Id: <12A039B2-3B42-49B1-887F-06A18B0C6ECA@wordtothewise.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257)
Subject: Re: [marf] Reviewers for draft-kucherawy-marf-source-ports
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 00:01:25 -0000

--Apple-Mail=_EBD53B96-46FF-48D0-AB67-498CDCB17A6D
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=windows-1252


On Apr 19, 2012, at 4:26 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:

> Comments inline.
> =20
> It looks reasonable at first glance. But I have some comments.
> =20
> MARF is intended for reporting sightings of email. This extension is =
intended to make reports of traffic from behind NATs able to =
differentiate between users behind a NAT. That implies that it's =
expected for legitimate email to be sent from behind a shared NAT. I =
wouldn't expect to see that in the wild, certainly not at a provider =
that's well enough set up that they're accepting ARF reports and keeping =
detailed access logs and so on - rather I'd expect that mail to be going =
through an authenticated smarthost, and no non-authenticated SMTP =
traffic being emitted from the NAT itself.
> =20
> [MSK: That=92s probably generally true, but I=92d imagine it=92s not =
universally true.  For the cases where it=92s not, the data reported by =
this extension header field might prove useful.]

I'm not sure that [LOG] *as applied to email* has value in the real =
world. Sure, a mix of spam and legitimate mail might leak out from a =
NAT, but the fix for that is to not allow port 25 outbound from the NAT =
and route it to a smarthost (where it can be filtered, throttled and =
have correct Received headers to identify the user added) instead.

It's reasonably harmless to add this information to ARF reports, but to =
standardize it implies that allowing outbound port 25 from a =
carrier-grade NAT is acceptable practice, which goes against the "don't =
let end-users or dynamically assigned users send mail directly to =
receiver MXes" and "don't allow port 25 through a NAT" principles we've =
been pushing for a while.

http://www.spamhaus.org/faq/section/Spamhaus%20XBL#37
http://cbl.abuseat.org/nat.html

=
http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ecic-ceac.nsf/vwapj/Companion_Document.pdf/$f=
ile/Companion_Document.pdf
http://www.maawg.org/sites/maawg/files/news/MAAWG_Port25rec0511.pdf


> =20
> What about ident?
> =20
> [MSK: Does anyone still use that?]

Sure. I'm not suggesting people use it, but this proposal is a less =
reliable, less privacy-friendly, replacement for ident so I thought I'd =
at least mention it.

Cheers,
  Steve




--Apple-Mail=_EBD53B96-46FF-48D0-AB67-498CDCB17A6D
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset=windows-1252

<html><head></head><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; =
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; =
"><br><div><div>On Apr 19, 2012, at 4:26 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy =
wrote:</div><br class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote =
type=3D"cite"><span class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"border-collapse: =
separate; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; letter-spacing: =
normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; =
text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; =
word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; =
-webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; =
-webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: =
auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; "><div lang=3D"EN-US" link=3D"blue" =
vlink=3D"purple"><div class=3D"WordSection1" style=3D"page: =
WordSection1; "><div style=3D"font-weight: normal; margin-top: 0in; =
margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; font-size: =
12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span style=3D"font-size: =
11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); =
">Comments inline.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style=3D"font-weight: =
normal; margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; =
margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New =
Roman', serif; "><span style=3D"font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, =
sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); =
"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></div><div style=3D"border-top-style: none; =
border-right-style: none; border-bottom-style: none; border-width: =
initial; border-color: initial; border-left-style: solid; =
border-left-color: blue; border-left-width: 1.5pt; padding-top: 0in; =
padding-right: 0in; padding-bottom: 0in; padding-left: 4pt; position: =
static; z-index: auto; "><div></div><div style=3D"font-family: =
Helvetica; font-size: medium; font-weight: normal; "><div =
style=3D"margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; =
margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New =
Roman', serif; ">It looks reasonable at first glance. But I have some =
comments.<o:p></o:p></div></div><div style=3D"font-family: Helvetica; =
font-size: medium; font-weight: normal; "><div style=3D"margin-top: 0in; =
margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; font-size: =
12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; =
"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></div></div><div style=3D"font-family: Helvetica; =
font-size: medium; font-weight: normal; "><div style=3D"margin-top: 0in; =
margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; font-size: =
12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; ">MARF is intended for =
reporting sightings of email. This extension is intended to make reports =
of traffic from behind NATs able to differentiate between users behind a =
NAT. That implies that it's expected for legitimate email to be sent =
from behind a shared NAT. I wouldn't expect to see that in the wild, =
certainly not at a provider that's well enough set up that they're =
accepting ARF reports and keeping detailed access logs and so on - =
rather I'd expect that mail to be going through an authenticated =
smarthost, and no non-authenticated SMTP traffic being emitted from the =
NAT itself.<o:p></o:p></div></div><div style=3D"font-family: Helvetica; =
font-size: medium; font-weight: normal; "><div style=3D"margin-top: 0in; =
margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; font-size: =
12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span style=3D"color: =
rgb(31, 73, 125); "><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></div><div =
style=3D"margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; =
margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New =
Roman', serif; "><span style=3D"font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, =
sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">[MSK: That=92s probably generally =
true, but I=92d imagine it=92s not universally true.&nbsp; For the cases =
where it=92s not, the data reported by this extension header field might =
prove =
useful.]</span></div></div></div></div></div></span></blockquote><div><br>=
</div><div>I'm not sure that [LOG] *as applied to email* has value in =
the real world. Sure, a mix of spam and legitimate mail might leak out =
from a NAT, but the fix for that is to not allow port 25 outbound from =
the NAT and route it to a smarthost (where it can be filtered, throttled =
and have correct Received headers to identify the user added) =
instead.</div><div><br></div><div>It's reasonably harmless to add this =
information to ARF reports, but to standardize it implies that allowing =
outbound port 25 from a carrier-grade NAT is acceptable practice, which =
goes against the "don't let end-users or dynamically assigned users send =
mail directly to receiver MXes" and "don't allow port 25 through a NAT" =
principles we've been pushing for a while.</div><div><br></div><div><a =
href=3D"http://www.spamhaus.org/faq/section/Spamhaus%20XBL#37">http://www.=
spamhaus.org/faq/section/Spamhaus%20XBL#37</a></div><div><a =
href=3D"http://cbl.abuseat.org/nat.html">http://cbl.abuseat.org/nat.html</=
a></div><div><br></div><div><a =
href=3D"http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ecic-ceac.nsf/vwapj/Companion_Documen=
t.pdf/$file/Companion_Document.pdf">http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ecic-ceac=
.nsf/vwapj/Companion_Document.pdf/$file/Companion_Document.pdf</a></div><d=
iv><a =
href=3D"http://www.maawg.org/sites/maawg/files/news/MAAWG_Port25rec0511.pd=
f">http://www.maawg.org/sites/maawg/files/news/MAAWG_Port25rec0511.pdf</a>=
</div><br></div><div><br><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div lang=3D"EN-US" =
link=3D"blue" vlink=3D"purple"><div class=3D"WordSection1" style=3D"page: =
WordSection1; "><div style=3D"border-top-style: none; =
border-right-style: none; border-bottom-style: none; border-width: =
initial; border-color: initial; border-left-style: solid; =
border-left-color: blue; border-left-width: 1.5pt; padding-top: 0in; =
padding-right: 0in; padding-bottom: 0in; padding-left: 4pt; position: =
static; z-index: auto; "><div><div style=3D"margin-top: 0in; =
margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; font-size: =
12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span style=3D"color: =
rgb(31, 73, 125); "><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></div><div =
style=3D"margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; =
margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New =
Roman', serif; ">What about ident?<o:p></o:p></div></div><div><div =
style=3D"margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; =
margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New =
Roman', serif; "><span style=3D"color: rgb(31, 73, 125); =
"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></div><div style=3D"margin-top: 0in; =
margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; font-size: =
12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span style=3D"font-size: =
11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">[MSK: =
Does anyone still use =
that?]</span></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><di=
v>Sure. I'm not suggesting people use it, but this proposal is a less =
reliable, less privacy-friendly, replacement for ident so I thought I'd =
at least mention it.</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers,</div><div>&nbsp; =
Steve</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div></body></htm=
l>=

--Apple-Mail=_EBD53B96-46FF-48D0-AB67-498CDCB17A6D--

From msk@cloudmark.com  Thu Apr 19 17:08:29 2012
Return-Path: <msk@cloudmark.com>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D52911E80D2 for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 17:08:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.566
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.566 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.032, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kq7lFteNFTCH for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 17:08:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.cloudmark.com (cmgw1.cloudmark.com [208.83.136.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6DED11E80CE for <marf@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 17:08:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com ([72.5.239.25]) by mail.cloudmark.com with bizsmtp id 008T1j0010ZaKgw0108Tnm; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 17:08:27 -0700
X-CMAE-Match: 0
X-CMAE-Score: 0.00
X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=RaES+iRv c=1 sm=1 a=LdFkGDrDWH2mcjCZERnC4w==:17 a=8Ubwy9MkvaUA:10 a=TvhglxwP5TMA:10 a=zutiEJmiVI4A:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=m0sUsssksoC-6TbL61QA:9 a=ptliux8pRnCy2vGo9_8A:7 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=lZB815dzVvQA:10 a=Zyl6g_yW8uPZHDCE:21 a=8Lwp5I40ZqD760t_:21 a=yMhMjlubAAAA:8 a=SSmOFEACAAAA:8 a=1c55qxmzZU_W5dvcTzQA:9 a=o_umdiE_F6l8xAFpjlMA:7 a=gKO2Hq4RSVkA:10 a=UiCQ7L4-1S4A:10 a=hTZeC7Yk6K0A:10 a=LdFkGDrDWH2mcjCZERnC4w==:117
Received: from EXCH-MBX901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::addf:849a:f71c:4a82]) by exch-htcas901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::2524:76b6:a865:539c%10]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 17:08:26 -0700
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: Steve Atkins <steve@wordtothewise.com>, "marf@ietf.org" <marf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [marf] Reviewers for draft-kucherawy-marf-source-ports
Thread-Index: Ac0eWIzAWiByKHBVQYeTaXZAPo6wLAAP01CAAAU64KAABad+AAAOl9tA
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 00:08:26 +0000
Message-ID: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FB7E9@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FAF8D@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <938CD663-D2D5-4E65-B3D4-B02424DC7124@wordtothewise.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FB6A1@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <12A039B2-3B42-49B1-887F-06A18B0C6ECA@wordtothewise.com>
In-Reply-To: <12A039B2-3B42-49B1-887F-06A18B0C6ECA@wordtothewise.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [172.22.1.156]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FB7E9exchmbx901corpclo_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cloudmark.com; s=default; t=1334880507; bh=xyDjApJS3dtQ4Xo2mpng0NJSsZhfeh61bQjW/zyC9W4=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=WuMPWNvUu5VzynfQgkzoH1tcKfdfI7I0mghAwqT221uWSYJIlhh98Jha6SAuMlawa Hn1smJQWEU6ryqL1Qu0gfieexrzwkrfN/Lt1f45DVptTUcR5XbbLQGGLKJu2Cxzl9+ BimumfhWn8Ae2DAPO/hW9MdeB30q1kaqZPYrSR44=
Subject: Re: [marf] Reviewers for draft-kucherawy-marf-source-ports
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 00:08:29 -0000

--_000_9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FB7E9exchmbx901corpclo_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


From: marf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:marf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ste=
ve Atkins
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 5:01 PM
To: marf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [marf] Reviewers for draft-kucherawy-marf-source-ports

I'm not sure that [LOG] *as applied to email* has value in the real world. =
Sure, a mix of spam and legitimate mail might leak out from a NAT, but the =
fix for that is to not allow port 25 outbound from the NAT and route it to =
a smarthost (where it can be filtered, throttled and have correct Received =
headers to identify the user added) instead.

It's reasonably harmless to add this information to ARF reports, but to sta=
ndardize it implies that allowing outbound port 25 from a carrier-grade NAT=
 is acceptable practice, which goes against the "don't let end-users or dyn=
amically assigned users send mail directly to receiver MXes" and "don't all=
ow port 25 through a NAT" principles we've been pushing for a while.

[MSK: I don't think publishing this extension amounts to an endorsement of =
allowing outbound port 25 from within a CGN.  Why is ARF the right place to=
 make that stand?  For cases where such is allowed, the data exchange is de=
sired.  Preventing ARF from doing it won't change ISP policies.]


What about ident?

[MSK: Does anyone still use that?]

Sure. I'm not suggesting people use it, but this proposal is a less reliabl=
e, less privacy-friendly, replacement for ident so I thought I'd at least m=
ention it.

[MSK: I don't think ident has enough current support to make it a viable al=
ternative.  How is adding ports to ARF reports a privacy concern?]

Cheers,
  Steve

--_000_9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FB7E9exchmbx901corpclo_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-micr=
osoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" =
xmlns:m=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns=3D"http:=
//www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dus-ascii"=
>
<meta name=3D"Generator" content=3D"Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
	{font-family:"Cambria Math";
	panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
	{font-family:Calibri;
	panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
	{font-family:Tahoma;
	panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
	{margin:0in;
	margin-bottom:.0001pt;
	font-size:12.0pt;
	font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
	{mso-style-priority:99;
	color:blue;
	text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
	{mso-style-priority:99;
	color:purple;
	text-decoration:underline;}
span.apple-style-span
	{mso-style-name:apple-style-span;}
span.EmailStyle18
	{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
	font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
	color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
	{mso-style-type:export-only;
	font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
	{size:8.5in 11.0in;
	margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
	{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext=3D"edit" spidmax=3D"1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext=3D"edit">
<o:idmap v:ext=3D"edit" data=3D"1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=3D"EN-US" link=3D"blue" vlink=3D"purple">
<div class=3D"WordSection1">
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span><=
/p>
<div style=3D"border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in =
4.0pt">
<div>
<div style=3D"border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in =
0in 0in">
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><b><span style=3D"font-size:10.0pt;font-family:&quot=
;Tahoma&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;">From:</span></b><span style=3D"font-s=
ize:10.0pt;font-family:&quot;Tahoma&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"> marf-bou=
nces@ietf.org [mailto:marf-bounces@ietf.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Steve Atkins<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, April 19, 2012 5:01 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> marf@ietf.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [marf] Reviewers for draft-kucherawy-marf-source-ports<=
o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">I'm not sure that [LOG] *as applied to email* has va=
lue in the real world. Sure, a mix of spam and legitimate mail might leak o=
ut from a NAT, but the fix for that is to not allow port 25 outbound from t=
he NAT and route it to a smarthost
 (where it can be filtered, throttled and have correct Received headers to =
identify the user added) instead.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">It's reasonably harmless to add this information to =
ARF reports, but to standardize it implies that allowing outbound port 25 f=
rom a carrier-grade NAT is acceptable practice, which goes against the &quo=
t;don't let end-users or dynamically assigned
 users send mail directly to receiver MXes&quot; and &quot;don't allow port=
 25 through a NAT&quot; principles we've been pushing for a while.<o:p></o:=
p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span><=
/p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D">[MSK: I don&#8217;t think=
 publishing this extension amounts to an endorsement of allowing outbound p=
ort 25 from within a CGN.&nbsp; Why is ARF the right place to make
 that stand?&nbsp; For cases where such is allowed, the data exchange is de=
sired.&nbsp; Preventing ARF from doing it won&#8217;t change ISP policies.]=
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div style=3D"border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in =
4.0pt;border-width:initial;border-color:initial;z-index:auto">
<div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"color:#1F497D">&nbsp;</span><o:p></o:=
p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">What about ident?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"color:#1F497D">&nbsp;</span><o:p></o:=
p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D">[MSK: Does anyone still u=
se that?]</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">Sure. I'm not suggesting people use it, but this pro=
posal is a less reliable, less privacy-friendly, replacement for ident so I=
 thought I'd at least mention it.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"color:#1F497D"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></spa=
n></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D">[MSK: I don&#8217;t think=
 ident has enough current support to make it a viable alternative.&nbsp; Ho=
w is adding ports to ARF reports a privacy concern?]<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span><=
/p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">Cheers,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">&nbsp; Steve<span style=3D"color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p=
></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>

--_000_9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FB7E9exchmbx901corpclo_--

From steve@wordtothewise.com  Thu Apr 19 17:24:34 2012
Return-Path: <steve@wordtothewise.com>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4522B11E80DC for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 17:24:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8EIadSMXrl9F for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 17:24:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from m.wordtothewise.com (misc.wordtothewise.com [184.105.179.154]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A75C111E8073 for <marf@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 17:24:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by m.wordtothewise.com (Postfix, from userid 1003) id 9A1EC2EB25; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 17:24:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from platter.wordtothewise.com (204.11.227.194.static.etheric.net [204.11.227.194]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: steve) by m.wordtothewise.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D66662EAE2 for <marf@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 17:24:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: Steve Atkins <steve@wordtothewise.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_11E9D9F1-8B37-4784-BCA1-28E1833A92AA"
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 17:24:32 -0700
In-Reply-To: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FB7E9@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
To: marf@ietf.org
References: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FAF8D@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <938CD663-D2D5-4E65-B3D4-B02424DC7124@wordtothewise.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FB6A1@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <12A039B2-3B42-49B1-887F-06A18B0C6ECA@wordtothewise.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FB7E9@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
Message-Id: <7038EA71-76F7-470F-B7FD-2BD3F18B5F5B@wordtothewise.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257)
Subject: Re: [marf] Reviewers for draft-kucherawy-marf-source-ports
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 00:24:34 -0000

--Apple-Mail=_11E9D9F1-8B37-4784-BCA1-28E1833A92AA
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=windows-1252


On Apr 19, 2012, at 5:08 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:

> =20
>=20
> I'm not sure that [LOG] *as applied to email* has value in the real =
world. Sure, a mix of spam and legitimate mail might leak out from a =
NAT, but the fix for that is to not allow port 25 outbound from the NAT =
and route it to a smarthost (where it can be filtered, throttled and =
have correct Received headers to identify the user added) instead.
> =20
> It's reasonably harmless to add this information to ARF reports, but =
to standardize it implies that allowing outbound port 25 from a =
carrier-grade NAT is acceptable practice, which goes against the "don't =
let end-users or dynamically assigned users send mail directly to =
receiver MXes" and "don't allow port 25 through a NAT" principles we've =
been pushing for a while.
> =20
> [MSK: I don=92t think publishing this extension amounts to an =
endorsement of allowing outbound port 25 from within a CGN.  Why is ARF =
the right place to make that stand?  For cases where such is allowed, =
the data exchange is desired.  Preventing ARF from doing it won=92t =
change ISP policies.]

I think it's reasonably harmless to document how to do it in ARF.=20

I don't think it will be of any value to report recipients or senders =
(for the reasons above) but that's no reason not to standardize it.

> =20
> =20
> What about ident?
> =20
> [MSK: Does anyone still use that?]
> =20
> Sure. I'm not suggesting people use it, but this proposal is a less =
reliable, less privacy-friendly, replacement for ident so I thought I'd =
at least mention it.
> =20
> [MSK: I don=92t think ident has enough current support to make it a =
viable alternative.=20

I tend to agree - but this is such a direct replacement for ident I =
thought I'd mention it.

> How is adding ports to ARF reports a privacy concern?]

It's not. The privacy issue is in [LOG], not here.

Cheers,
  Steve


--Apple-Mail=_11E9D9F1-8B37-4784-BCA1-28E1833A92AA
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset=windows-1252

<html><head></head><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; =
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; =
"><br><div><div>On Apr 19, 2012, at 5:08 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy =
wrote:</div><br class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote =
type=3D"cite"><span class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"border-collapse: =
separate; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; letter-spacing: =
normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; =
text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; =
word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; =
-webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; =
-webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: =
auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; "><div lang=3D"EN-US" link=3D"blue" =
vlink=3D"purple"><div class=3D"WordSection1" style=3D"page: =
WordSection1; "><div style=3D"font-weight: normal; margin-top: 0in; =
margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; font-size: =
12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span style=3D"font-size: =
11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); =
"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></div><div style=3D"border-top-style: none; =
border-right-style: none; border-bottom-style: none; border-width: =
initial; border-color: initial; border-left-style: solid; =
border-left-color: blue; border-left-width: 1.5pt; padding-top: 0in; =
padding-right: 0in; padding-bottom: 0in; padding-left: 4pt; position: =
static; z-index: auto; "><div style=3D"font-family: Helvetica; =
font-size: medium; font-weight: normal; "><div =
style=3D"border-right-style: none; border-bottom-style: none; =
border-left-style: none; border-width: initial; border-color: initial; =
border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(181, 196, 223); =
border-top-width: 1pt; padding-top: 3pt; padding-right: 0in; =
padding-bottom: 0in; padding-left: 0in; position: static; z-index: auto; =
"><div style=3D"margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; =
margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New =
Roman', serif; "></div></div></div><font class=3D"Apple-style-span" =
face=3D"Tahoma, sans-serif"><span class=3D"Apple-style-span" =
style=3D"font-size: 13px;"><b><br></b></span></font><div =
style=3D"font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; font-weight: normal; =
"><div><div style=3D"margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-left: =
0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New =
Roman', serif; ">I'm not sure that [LOG] *as applied to email* has value =
in the real world. Sure, a mix of spam and legitimate mail might leak =
out from a NAT, but the fix for that is to not allow port 25 outbound =
from the NAT and route it to a smarthost (where it can be filtered, =
throttled and have correct Received headers to identify the user added) =
instead.<o:p></o:p></div></div><div><div style=3D"margin-top: 0in; =
margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; font-size: =
12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; =
"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></div></div><div><div style=3D"margin-top: 0in; =
margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; font-size: =
12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; ">It's reasonably harmless =
to add this information to ARF reports, but to standardize it implies =
that allowing outbound port 25 from a carrier-grade NAT is acceptable =
practice, which goes against the "don't let end-users or dynamically =
assigned users send mail directly to receiver MXes" and "don't allow =
port 25 through a NAT" principles we've been pushing for a =
while.<o:p></o:p></div><div style=3D"margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; =
margin-left: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: =
'Times New Roman', serif; "><span style=3D"font-size: 11pt; font-family: =
Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); =
"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></div><div style=3D"margin-top: 0in; =
margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; font-size: =
12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span style=3D"font-size: =
11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">[MSK: =
I don=92t think publishing this extension amounts to an endorsement of =
allowing outbound port 25 from within a CGN.&nbsp; Why is ARF the right =
place to make that stand?&nbsp; For cases where such is allowed, the =
data exchange is desired.&nbsp; Preventing ARF from doing it won=92t =
change ISP =
policies.]</span></div></div></div></div></div></div></span></blockquote><=
div><br></div><div>I think it's reasonably harmless to document how to =
do it in ARF.&nbsp;</div><div><br></div><div>I don't think it will be of =
any value to report recipients or senders (for the reasons above) but =
that's no reason not to standardize it.</div><br><blockquote =
type=3D"cite"><span class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"border-collapse: =
separate; font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: =
normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: =
normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; =
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; =
-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: =
0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: =
auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><div =
lang=3D"EN-US" link=3D"blue" vlink=3D"purple"><div class=3D"WordSection1" =
style=3D"page: WordSection1; "><div style=3D"border-top-style: none; =
border-right-style: none; border-bottom-style: none; border-width: =
initial; border-color: initial; border-left-style: solid; =
border-left-color: blue; border-left-width: 1.5pt; padding-top: 0in; =
padding-right: 0in; padding-bottom: 0in; padding-left: 4pt; position: =
static; z-index: auto; "><div><div><div style=3D"margin-top: 0in; =
margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; font-size: =
12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span style=3D"font-size: =
11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); =
"><o:p></o:p></span></div></div><div><div style=3D"margin-top: 0in; =
margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; font-size: =
12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; =
"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></div></div></div><div><div><div =
style=3D"border-top-style: none; border-right-style: none; =
border-bottom-style: none; border-width: initial; border-color: initial; =
border-left-style: solid; padding-top: 0in; padding-right: 0in; =
padding-bottom: 0in; padding-left: 4pt; border-width: initial; =
border-color: initial; position: static; z-index: auto; "><div><div><div =
style=3D"margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; =
margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New =
Roman', serif; "><span style=3D"color: rgb(31, 73, 125); =
">&nbsp;</span><o:p></o:p></div></div><div><div style=3D"margin-top: =
0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; =
font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; ">What about =
ident?<o:p></o:p></div></div></div><div><div><div style=3D"margin-top: =
0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; =
font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span =
style=3D"color: rgb(31, 73, 125); =
">&nbsp;</span><o:p></o:p></div></div><div><div style=3D"margin-top: =
0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; =
font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span =
style=3D"font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: =
rgb(31, 73, 125); ">[MSK: Does anyone still use =
that?]</span><o:p></o:p></div></div></div></div></div><div><div =
style=3D"margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; =
margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New =
Roman', serif; "><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></div></div><div><div =
style=3D"margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; =
margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New =
Roman', serif; ">Sure. I'm not suggesting people use it, but this =
proposal is a less reliable, less privacy-friendly, replacement for =
ident so I thought I'd at least mention =
it.<o:p></o:p></div></div><div><div style=3D"margin-top: 0in; =
margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; font-size: =
12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span style=3D"color: =
rgb(31, 73, 125); "><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></div><div =
style=3D"margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; =
margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New =
Roman', serif; "><span style=3D"font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, =
sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">[MSK: I don=92t think ident has =
enough current support to make it a viable alternative.&nbsp; =
</span></div></div></div></div></div></div></span></blockquote><div><br></=
div><div>I tend to agree - but this is such a direct replacement for =
ident I thought I'd mention it.</div><br><blockquote type=3D"cite"><span =
class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"border-collapse: separate; =
font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; =
font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; =
orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: =
none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; =
-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: =
0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: =
auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><div =
lang=3D"EN-US" link=3D"blue" vlink=3D"purple"><div class=3D"WordSection1" =
style=3D"page: WordSection1; "><div style=3D"border-top-style: none; =
border-right-style: none; border-bottom-style: none; border-width: =
initial; border-color: initial; border-left-style: solid; =
border-left-color: blue; border-left-width: 1.5pt; padding-top: 0in; =
padding-right: 0in; padding-bottom: 0in; padding-left: 4pt; position: =
static; z-index: auto; "><div><div><div style=3D"margin-top: 0in; =
margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; font-size: =
12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span style=3D"font-size: =
11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">How =
is adding ports to ARF reports a privacy =
concern?]<o:p></o:p></span></div></div></div></div></div></div></span></bl=
ockquote></div><br><div>It's not. The privacy issue is in [LOG], not =
here.</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers,</div><div>&nbsp; =
Steve</div><div><br></div></body></html>=

--Apple-Mail=_11E9D9F1-8B37-4784-BCA1-28E1833A92AA--

From sklist@kitterman.com  Thu Apr 19 20:39:58 2012
Return-Path: <sklist@kitterman.com>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7269921F858B for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 20:39:58 -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 ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yBogVomR1drz for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 20:39:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout02.controlledmail.com (mailout02.controlledmail.com [72.81.252.18]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E050B21F8542 for <marf@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 20:39:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout02.controlledmail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailout02.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A95B20E409F; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 23:39:56 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=kitterman.com; s=2007-00; t=1334893196; bh=Ex6VRe5TiDjJ+qfYqkBZe7KDISpryx4IZaxRBpxwTK4=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type; b=hSsphPNsjHdzXOCZ8HYpr7Xi2i/ULCkTWy8lqxGEE5fMkx0k7vwwuPKSTHPu2F62Y KlvXO/MG6HcF911Q0WfgtLAqZ+mhPEb0xGzHJ8lgumefuNVipsX+tinLcIw1b6AVZN TVF2peUvweklEA9XnV0HiJ+ENqpL0AIol2jRFkK0=
Received: from scott-latitude-e6320.localnet (static-72-81-252-21.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [72.81.252.21]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailout02.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 59B8020E408F;  Thu, 19 Apr 2012 23:39:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
To: marf@ietf.org
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 23:39:55 -0400
Message-ID: <1434444.a5S9OXjO4j@scott-latitude-e6320>
User-Agent: KMail/4.8.2 (Linux/3.2.0-23-generic-pae; KDE/4.8.2; i686; ; )
In-Reply-To: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FB6E1@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FB672@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <81ce01ab-73b2-42f3-aaad-d3d7d7f78349@email.android.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FB6E1@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-AV-Checked: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
Subject: Re: [marf] Slight change to AS document
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 03:39:58 -0000

On Thursday, April 19, 2012 11:34:51 PM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: marf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:marf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> > Scott Kitterman Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 4:27 PM
> > To: marf@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [marf] Slight change to AS document
> > 
> > I'd have to see the text to know. I think it's very important to keep
> > the distinction between the two concepts.
> 
> http://www.blackops.org/~msk/draft-ietf-marf-as.html

Thanks.  I think it's fine.

Scott K

From sklist@kitterman.com  Thu Apr 19 20:51:29 2012
Return-Path: <sklist@kitterman.com>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 444C221F860E for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 20:51:29 -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 ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DP0aI3K66RKH for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 20:51:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout02.controlledmail.com (mailout02.controlledmail.com [72.81.252.18]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B82B721F860D for <marf@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 20:51:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout02.controlledmail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailout02.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5564520E409F; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 23:51:28 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=kitterman.com; s=2007-00; t=1334893888; bh=HgpraV/btrwdcSVP8P6IBEPduFyi9MXkZhE/9j4BLD0=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type; b=Q9l1BTCZ2GBx1HfAITY6gVCYf6QUfeWRLOIIm5ATN4pSynfaHqzcli7884y4jbg4M ZDu9L81i453GOfrgNm3J01A9Ktn7rVqGSIdCBIrpGQt6Rlv3IGK2Ra54AYIZF83Dfu CW/D22AkLl1nmEMDtUKeGfEnsLGfu99JBmgtMOV0=
Received: from scott-latitude-e6320.localnet (static-72-81-252-21.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [72.81.252.21]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailout02.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4794720E408F;  Thu, 19 Apr 2012 23:51:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
To: marf@ietf.org
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 23:51:27 -0400
Message-ID: <1432910.0rdicqnaN1@scott-latitude-e6320>
User-Agent: KMail/4.8.2 (Linux/3.2.0-23-generic-pae; KDE/4.8.2; i686; ; )
In-Reply-To: <7038EA71-76F7-470F-B7FD-2BD3F18B5F5B@wordtothewise.com>
References: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FAF8D@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FB7E9@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <7038EA71-76F7-470F-B7FD-2BD3F18B5F5B@wordtothewise.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-AV-Checked: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
Subject: Re: [marf] Reviewers for draft-kucherawy-marf-source-ports
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 03:51:29 -0000

On Thursday, April 19, 2012 05:24:32 PM Steve Atkins wrote:
...
> I don't think it will be of any value to report recipients or senders (for
> the reasons above) but that's no reason not to standardize it.
...

Sure it is.  Additional complexity doesn't come for free, so it shouldn't be 
accepted without reason.

Scott K

From johnl@iecc.com  Fri Apr 20 05:39:40 2012
Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.com>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49E1821F86DE for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 05:39:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -111.022
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-111.022 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.177, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DZft8v6PSN5c for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 05:39:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7442521F86DB for <marf@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 05:39:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 87597 invoked from network); 20 Apr 2012 12:39:32 -0000
Received: from leila.iecc.com (64.57.183.34) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 20 Apr 2012 12:39:32 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:vbr-info; s=4f915904.xn--3zv.k1204; i=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=f7bzCEyHBeRsIjXChLQrxiMorcwV98arSDrH+sngiZM=; b=Bx5CanMtQw9yf0lKmox74DHIe/GzfDAzCf0dvW/voa+9r7n0aCl/y8ZODDH9HZ6uKSzOXPhfL1KULh3EXZe6XygHgwrTySrfqUIGYVNZpIUMb3+kN+PVF/VCE7fzh3UxbEdzxk018H6kG98wCQtWFfcuHmxOMgKCcbmuKN4Yfa8=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:vbr-info; s=4f915904.xn--3zv.k1204; olt=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=f7bzCEyHBeRsIjXChLQrxiMorcwV98arSDrH+sngiZM=; b=JgtipFljQQUtW2NBN9Mr7GkeMrIyYjCOKFTWWR059i+qwwPAg73uOSJ2b9RS95GaX1kuSDqQeN/XKogcrRLbHN2CJpx9xkELX0FwTG2HCi3NiXbXQdymeWuCOv6/f+hwzz3RG/zJx1xLFHrsnx0zV07JsJnoK1MKv7Pd+jdPuUg=
VBR-Info: md=iecc.com; mc=all; mv=dwl.spamhaus.org
Date: 20 Apr 2012 12:39:09 -0000
Message-ID: <20120420123909.19568.qmail@joyce.lan>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: marf@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <1432910.0rdicqnaN1@scott-latitude-e6320>
Organization: 
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [marf] Reviewers for draft-kucherawy-marf-source-ports
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 12:39:40 -0000

>Sure it is.  Additional complexity doesn't come for free, so it shouldn't be 
>accepted without reason.

Having added Source-Port to my reporting scripts yesterday, I can say that
the additional complexity involved is quite small.

Remember that this draft is just implementing the logging advice in
RFC 6302, whose authors work at Juniper, Yahoo, Facebook, and AT&T.  I
would assume that their employers wouldn't have given them time to
work on it if they didn't think it would be of some value.

R's,
John

From vesely@tana.it  Fri Apr 20 08:07:00 2012
Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 843B621F8778 for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 08:07:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.596
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.596 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.123,  BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lnKGvuo4QLTi for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 08:06:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (www.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 252EC21F876D for <marf@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 08:06:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=test; t=1334934413; bh=Z7LAg7kbAbJBzU1BL+vM3NZxh1tmVIsZP0q3lfKynoY=; l=397; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=MLzWcg8ZLbklX6Oj5vlYGrFC8dvdKDRV/D4Kl62RtP0KFsTvIZfUBt7nS6Es/WXns pMU+DEIp9bxecGnk1rnKEYJsIeLtYIQ3rZM2QHjZQA76x2/2S4cAVbW2eI/6Ryf5Ul AljPwjnEkzw8/ommaagFboKNar533Dew8BiDDFTc=
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, 20 Apr 2012 17:06:53 +0200 id 00000000005DC047.000000004F917B8D.00002890
Message-ID: <4F917B8D.50001@tana.it>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 17:06:53 +0200
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: marf@ietf.org
References: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FB672@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
In-Reply-To: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FB672@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [marf] Slight change to AS document
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 15:07:00 -0000

On Fri 20/Apr/2012 16:58:31 +0200 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> 
> There are a couple of other minor text changes as a result of the
> Gen-ART review

I guess we'll miss them until we run a diff.

> So I plan to do that in the very near future (i.e., late tomorrow)
> unless someone thinks that’s a really terrible idea.

It's not terrible, it looks like an aesthetic adjustment to me.

From steve@wordtothewise.com  Fri Apr 20 08:45:15 2012
Return-Path: <steve@wordtothewise.com>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94B4021F87A2 for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 08:45:15 -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=[AWL=0.000,  BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6Mh457ZQcxXB for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 08:45:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from m.wordtothewise.com (misc.wordtothewise.com [184.105.179.154]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D12CC21F8726 for <marf@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 08:45:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by m.wordtothewise.com (Postfix, from userid 1003) id E292A2EB29; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 08:45:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from platter.wordtothewise.com (204.11.227.194.static.etheric.net [204.11.227.194]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: steve) by m.wordtothewise.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0D8782DECF for <marf@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 08:45:11 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257)
From: Steve Atkins <steve@wordtothewise.com>
In-Reply-To: <20120420123909.19568.qmail@joyce.lan>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 08:45:11 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1DE48267-9D57-42C8-A46D-0B1DEAD02326@wordtothewise.com>
References: <20120420123909.19568.qmail@joyce.lan>
To: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257)
Subject: Re: [marf] Reviewers for draft-kucherawy-marf-source-ports
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 15:45:15 -0000

On Apr 20, 2012, at 5:39 AM, John Levine wrote:

>> Sure it is.  Additional complexity doesn't come for free, so it =
shouldn't be=20
>> accepted without reason.
>=20
> Having added Source-Port to my reporting scripts yesterday, I can say =
that
> the additional complexity involved is quite small.
>=20
> Remember that this draft is just implementing the logging advice in
> RFC 6302, whose authors work at Juniper, Yahoo, Facebook, and AT&T.  I
> would assume that their employers wouldn't have given them time to
> work on it if they didn't think it would be of some value.

Email through dynamic NAT is not the same as HTTP through dynamic
NAT, though.

Source port only provides useful information to the report recipient if
there are at least two SMTP sessions from the NAT to the same MX
initiated (SYN) within a second or two of each other, and one of those
SMTP sessions is a cause for complaints and one of those SMTP
sessions is legitimate email. And the mail that's causing complaints
needs to be "direct-to-MX" bot-style spoor, most likely, or there'll
be plenty of information in the Received headers of the mail that's
being complained about to identify the customer more easily than
going through NAT logs.

Adding source port information to an ARF report only benefits the
sender of the report if all the above are true, and the report recipient
is going to expend the effort to grovel through their NAT logs to =
identify
the rooted machine that's spewing spam, despite them not caring about
emitting spam to the extent of blocking port 25 outbound from their
NAT.=20

(I deal with a lot of customers who dynamically assign their
customers IP addresses, and the effort involved in dealing with
that data as part of complaint handling is significant, and it's painful
enough that they cannot do it in anything close to real time. NAT
logs are going to be much larger, and much more dynamic. Groveling
through them is going to take *significant* effort.)

When you combine the technical and the social, I don't think adding
the source port is going to change the result of the ARF report in a
significant number of cases.

Cheers,
  Steve


From sm@elandsys.com  Thu Apr 19 14:16:11 2012
Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1682111E80B8; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 14:16:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.572
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.572 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.027, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GQxObidyqPBb; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 14:16:09 -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 9B21411E80BA; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 14:16:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.235.236]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q3JLFgXd007870 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 19 Apr 2012 14:16:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1334870164; i=@elandsys.com; bh=tmqFeoVo8TS4mbGE7iNnGf5SFs7IacjXLpnZWslwpdQ=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=pW54bv9k2kYGtnHbXdfvzJ9QIXy3w58OeYRoNGZ2Xo4kzQEvdDcd7wMGppD/31P6F O0DIZc/fPOLAV+ZX4RFoB0IemvzSL4qQMqgPqhB1DPFIcaW06UEVRhI+fbfizszL2f KVvTTHVFd9MXdK2isgWlCFP5v2RjU5Adsoc9Rq2E=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1334870164; i=@elandsys.com; bh=tmqFeoVo8TS4mbGE7iNnGf5SFs7IacjXLpnZWslwpdQ=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=1gC/d5AeOVoypuAf4GKSRDc8kqb8qdoANG8o2DHNHoJjMu05BEB6DrlBBiDngUtpX iyG05eetINoppGwwhQusQ3nnE010xbVx/k96s95P8n/zg/wtWMghkbacSNHN2l9rB8 sApK7wjlbnM8pP8g8Br0krp4J5On0g6DSzuorrEQ=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120419130040.0b4ee328@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 14:14:43 -0700
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 09:54:49 -0700
Cc: draft-kucherawy-marf-source-ports.all@tools.ietf.org, marf@ietf.org
Subject: [marf] APPSDIR review of draft-kucherawy-marf-source-ports-01
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 21:16:11 -0000

I have been selected as the Applications Area Directorate reviewer 
for this draft (for background on AppsDir, please see 
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/ApplicationsAreaDirectorate ).

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments 
you may receive. Please wait for direction from your document 
shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-kucherawy-marf-source-ports-01
Title: Source Ports in ARF Reports
Reviewer: S. Moonesamy
Review Date: April 19, 2012

Summary:  This document is almost ready for publication as a Proposed 
Standard.

This draft defines and registers an additional header field for use in Abuse
Reporting Format reports.  The header field carries source port 
information, which can be useful in IP address sharing scenarios.

Minor issues:

In Section 3:

   "A new ARF reporting field called "Source-Port" is defined.  When
    present in a report, it MUST contain the TCP or UDP source port
    matching the "Source-IP" field in the same report, thereby describing
    completely the origin of the abuse incident."

UDP is not used for SMTP.  It's easier just to remove "TCP or UDP".

   "When any report is generated that includes the "Source-IP" reporting
    field, this field SHOULD also be present."

It's difficult to tell when not to do the above.  I suggest replacing 
SHOULD with RECOMMENDED:

   it is RECOMMENDED to add this header field.

In the Security Considerations section, I suggest referring to RFC 6302.

Nits:

In the Abstract:

   "This document registers an additional header field for use in Abuse
    Reporting Format reports to permit the identification of the source
    port of the connection involved in an abuse incident."

The sentence describes a registration and what the header field 
does.  I suggest breaking the sentence into two parts or keeping it easy:

    This document defines an additional header field for use in Abuse
    Reporting Format reports to permit the identification of the source
    port of the connection involved in an abuse incident.

In the Introduction Section:

   "[ARF] defined the Abuse Reporting Format, a new header message format
    for use in reporting incidents of email abuse."

I suggest removing "new" as it won't be new in a year or 
two.  "header message format" is confusing.  I'll suggest:

    [ARF] defined the Abuse Reporting Format, an extensible format for
    Email Feedback Reports.  These reports are used used to report incidents
    of email abuse.  [ARF] was extended by ...

   "Although those specifications gave the capability to include
    the source IP address in the report, the source port was not
    included

  I suggest:

   These specifications provided for the source IP address to be included
   in a report. As explained in [LOG], the deployment of IP address
   sharing techniques requires the source port values to be included in
   reports if unambiguous identification of the origin of abuse is to be
   achieved.

   "Accordingly, this memo registers an ARF reporting field to contain
    this information and provides guidance for its use."

I suggest:

   This document defines ARF reporting field to specify the source
   port.

I don't see much guidance in the draft.

The reference to I-D.IETF-MARF-AUTHFAILURE-REPORT should be updated 
to RFC 5691.

In Section 3:

   'A new ARF reporting field called "Source-Port" is defined.'

That should be header field (see Section 3.2 of RFC 5965).  I gather 
that the intent is to make this an optional header field.  I suggest 
specifying that Section 3.2 is being updated.  That should also be 
done for Section 3.1 of RFC 6591.

In Section 4:

   "Description:  TCP or UDP source port from which the reported
      connection originated"

I suggest removing "TCP or UDP".

Regards,
S. Moonesamy


From sm@elandsys.com  Thu Apr 19 17:55:13 2012
Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F070C11E80A1; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 17:55:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.572
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.572 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.027, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wfpGhDhQ4dej; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 17:55:11 -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 DD14F11E8073; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 17:55:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.237.193]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q3K0somD027173 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 19 Apr 2012 17:55:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1334883305; i=@elandsys.com; bh=MBjGV4DN9h3WYRMPscMfJ/JhI+2AhMLqBJkBra6Ik7Q=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=1ua+mcEnwvnWSic1exVQe+x8t+Ay97VsFhAOgpNmpbBDBMnfICSI1lGoCW8J/PjfA D1Bs6pWLdnp36xH3mEnwrvf+zlOrZ9mxVWVpAVMpbpQ5qFrsWfBzYxBU1odkh7zHDI ROraOm8PrYosVWmLmdjlTErArjIkLP8CUWuv6eIg=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1334883305; i=@elandsys.com; bh=MBjGV4DN9h3WYRMPscMfJ/JhI+2AhMLqBJkBra6Ik7Q=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=qCDBmk5FX+irUDI3kJP+2iXovLNOHEO/xYYnhJtmigA/HWQGtsbUWY34FjyHI1ri5 GS3827Fvp8wur75uHJDxNkKIHZ8PnZbKhDAlEwbj+/IAXVf5r3GqaXBWuhGGIcTkJM Jv1NHsgK7bgNsOuxg7o2Tyn51Bh/C4lf7ryp69dg=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120419171013.09a89ba0@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 17:54:03 -0700
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>, apps-discuss@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FB707@exch-mbx901.corp.cl oudmark.com>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120419130040.0b4ee328@elandnews.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FB707@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 09:54:49 -0700
Cc: draft-kucherawy-marf-source-ports.all@tools.ietf.org, marf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [marf] [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-kucherawy-marf-source-ports-01
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 00:55:13 -0000

Hi Murray,

At 16:45 19-04-2012, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>Hi SM, thanks for the review!

It took 74 minutes, including distractions. :-)

>You're right about UDP.  I'd prefer to leave TCP in, however.

Ok.

>I think these are semantically the same.  We're still left with the 
>question, "When would you not?"  The answer is "When you don't have 
>it," I suppose.  I'll reword accordingly.

I used RECOMMENDED to be in line with RFC 6302.  I could not come up 
with suggested text for that "SHOULD" within the deadline.

>There's some in the next version, based on yours and other feedback.  :-)

I'll do a follow-up if the draft goes to Last Call.  BTW, you don't 
need an update in the Abstract ( -02).

>I haven't seen specific section call-outs done in an updating 
>document before, only the "Updates" stuff on the title page.  Is 
>this necessary?

No, as I classified it under nits.  This document may be folded in 
the RFCs it updates at some point.  It's easier if it inherits the 
requirements in those documents.  If I am implementing the 
specifications, it is easier to read and understand.  From an IETF 
perspective, you don't have to worry about all that.

BTW, I didn't get into the RFC 6302 angle altogether.  Section 13.3 
of RFC 6269 discusses about spam in the context of IP address 
sharing.  The issues around IP address sharing are due to the 
deployment of CGNs.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy  


From barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com  Fri Apr 20 10:08:20 2012
Return-Path: <barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37D0721F86E8; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 10:08:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.906
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.906 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.071, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zF-9ZErsOIve; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 10:08:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-f44.google.com (mail-yw0-f44.google.com [209.85.213.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C78321F86E5; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 10:08:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by yhkk25 with SMTP id k25so6096377yhk.31 for <multiple recipients>; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 10:08:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=wPGZhrRaP2kv60GW6yTgZU707596FHQZlLIF6qnOZrY=; b=SPHaK65g6BnP0jPRDjLebpVX7gdM4aLJwIL0euZtaE2sMOd6YI/zRpLZXsHAkpTLbC VK3aIbCUTposh3J4Ga2H8BP2nR9YhyxT+wCfGuCjOoPqpWKJvimBjCCyRpYAFgoIYdtz Avs5vZXZBi5SRL5VBC0LvVPAvGaj2gjcOFeO97pjqHsZE0y6LgO83OFTNgXdB9CuOdFb w4JZD+9IcSCb9wGXc2SHBJBigwG8mQ0nWrPHiwix6xJtB2nOKACJwXpHYau0ry1MoP4d vzhWSBjdIE1j/8U2t7tjR3axiBcLDtFk35kjJ6A93S+rBFPe27ut81ldYNsheCiAwysL ng5w==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.236.76.133 with SMTP id b5mr6837046yhe.3.1334941699111; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 10:08:19 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com
Received: by 10.147.152.14 with HTTP; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 10:08:19 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FB707@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120419130040.0b4ee328@elandnews.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FB707@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 13:08:19 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: JcibHHpiXYbiwHri_ACkM64OuxQ
Message-ID: <CAC4RtVDGrk9pB1+fuj86gcU4xP_TBh29gSmGGoKw+AeJZ1xBAA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "draft-kucherawy-marf-source-ports.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-kucherawy-marf-source-ports.all@tools.ietf.org>, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>, "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, "marf@ietf.org" <marf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [marf] [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-kucherawy-marf-source-ports-01
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 17:08:20 -0000

>> =A0 =A0'A new ARF reporting field called "Source-Port" is defined.'
>>
>> That should be header field (see Section 3.2 of RFC 5965). =A0I gather
>> that the intent is to make this an optional header field. =A0I suggest
>> specifying that Section 3.2 is being updated. =A0That should also be don=
e
>> for Section 3.1 of RFC 6591.
>
> I haven't seen specific section call-outs done in an updating document be=
fore, only
> the "Updates" stuff on the title page. =A0Is this necessary?

I've seen it occasionally.  I think that if the sense in which B
updates A is narrow enough that it's easy to specify what's updated,
it's quite useful to say what's updated.  I doubt you'll get any
DISCUSSes if you don't, but anything that will help the reader make
better use of both specs is a good thing.

Barry

From msk@cloudmark.com  Fri Apr 20 10:17:12 2012
Return-Path: <msk@cloudmark.com>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CEA221F8670 for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 10:17:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.566
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.566 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.033, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XFWJdQLBKEUk for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 10:17:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.cloudmark.com (cmgw1.cloudmark.com [208.83.136.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 795B721F866C for <marf@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 10:17:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com ([72.5.239.26]) by mail.cloudmark.com with bizsmtp id 0HGx1j0010as01C01HGxcP; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 10:16:57 -0700
X-CMAE-Match: 0
X-CMAE-Score: 0.00
X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=fNu7LOme c=1 sm=1 a=QMZKka45TBd+hNGtXG2bIg==:17 a=LvckAehuu68A:10 a=qZODYEWQ6tEA:10 a=zutiEJmiVI4A:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=pGLkceISAAAA:8 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=6-s60PiWim1u0hFyA74A:9 a=KZxLVw75WxjCe1zenf0A:7 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=MSl-tDqOz04A:10 a=lZB815dzVvQA:10 a=QMZKka45TBd+hNGtXG2bIg==:117
Received: from EXCH-MBX901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::addf:849a:f71c:4a82]) by exch-htcas902.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::54de:dc60:5f3e:334%10]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 10:16:38 -0700
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, "marf@ietf.org" <marf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-kucherawy-marf-source-ports-01
Thread-Index: AQHNHxgvZDroB1XnTE+/NFHqiPdv5paj9F7A
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 17:16:37 +0000
Message-ID: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FC807@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120419130040.0b4ee328@elandnews.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FB707@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <CAC4RtVDGrk9pB1+fuj86gcU4xP_TBh29gSmGGoKw+AeJZ1xBAA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAC4RtVDGrk9pB1+fuj86gcU4xP_TBh29gSmGGoKw+AeJZ1xBAA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [172.20.2.121]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cloudmark.com; s=default; t=1334942217; bh=+/DhjC8FZipLHzsG1c/9jAZhajeSHovA0hZU+5Mc0fU=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=KYbdvXpRw1oNuq+JoGwc11opL2B5LwwY7phZ48E7mgRXnEpv/URKMYEi6B0ZPMsxc ikexUEPRgXld0aNEvFYBI1D2eXl5pgievlfJgXGqKXpK9ohlAEIy7GIFO1G/CfNkpY ki37ILyCG2IEmNybSWLXOGC98azAL3eO/YigXNFg=
Subject: Re: [marf] [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-kucherawy-marf-source-ports-01
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 17:17:12 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com
> [mailto:barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Barry Leiba
> Sent: Friday, April 20, 2012 10:08 AM
> To: Murray S. Kucherawy
> Cc: S Moonesamy; apps-discuss@ietf.org; draft-kucherawy-marf-source-
> ports.all@tools.ietf.org; marf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-kucherawy-marf-
> source-ports-01
>=20
> > I haven't seen specific section call-outs done in an updating document
> > before, only the "Updates" stuff on the title page. =A0Is this necessar=
y?
>=20
> I've seen it occasionally.  I think that if the sense in which B
> updates A is narrow enough that it's easy to specify what's updated,
> it's quite useful to say what's updated.  I doubt you'll get any
> DISCUSSes if you don't, but anything that will help the reader make
> better use of both specs is a good thing.

Huh, OK.  References added.

-MSK

From internet-drafts@ietf.org  Fri Apr 20 14:52:09 2012
Return-Path: <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D25E121E8043; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 14:52:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.47
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.47 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.129, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7-jWEecwaJEm; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 14:52:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69D8121E8011; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 14:52:09 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: internet-drafts@ietf.org
To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.00
Message-ID: <20120420215209.32049.63933.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 14:52:09 -0700
Cc: marf@ietf.org
Subject: [marf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-marf-as-14.txt
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 21:52:10 -0000

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director=
ies. This draft is a work item of the Messaging Abuse Reporting Format Work=
ing Group of the IETF.

	Title           : Creation and Use of Email Feedback Reports: An Applicabi=
lity Statement for the Abuse Reporting Format (ARF)
	Author(s)       : J.D. Falk
                          M. Kucherawy
	Filename        : draft-ietf-marf-as-14.txt
	Pages           : 15
	Date            : 2012-04-20

   RFC 5965 defines an extensible, machine-readable format intended for
   mail operators to report feedback about received email to other
   parties.  This Applicability Statement describes common methods for
   utilizing this format for reporting both abuse and authentication
   failure events.  Mailbox Providers of any size, mail sending
   entities, and end users can use these methods as a basis to create
   procedures that best suit them.  Some related optional mechanisms are
   also discussed.


A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-marf-as-14.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-marf-as-14.txt


From msk@cloudmark.com  Sun Apr 22 13:25:16 2012
Return-Path: <msk@cloudmark.com>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FAAC21F85BD for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 Apr 2012 13:25:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.645
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.645 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.046, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DVrTYqtMOS69 for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 Apr 2012 13:25:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.cloudmark.com (cmgw1.cloudmark.com [208.83.136.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C714621F85B6 for <marf@ietf.org>; Sun, 22 Apr 2012 13:25:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com ([72.5.239.26]) by mail.cloudmark.com with bizsmtp id 18RF1j0010as01C018RFRe; Sun, 22 Apr 2012 13:25:15 -0700
X-CMAE-Match: 0
X-CMAE-Score: 0.00
X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=RaES+iRv c=1 sm=1 a=QMZKka45TBd+hNGtXG2bIg==:17 a=ldJM1g7oyCcA:10 a=Pengzl89C0IA:10 a=zutiEJmiVI4A:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=Luyob8o-JWSPInQ5tZMA:9 a=IWT6-9QyXVzm_wxHthYA:7 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=QMZKka45TBd+hNGtXG2bIg==:117
Received: from EXCH-MBX901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::addf:849a:f71c:4a82]) by exch-htcas902.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::54de:dc60:5f3e:334%10]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Sun, 22 Apr 2012 13:25:15 -0700
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: "marf@ietf.org" <marf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: secdir review of draft-ietf-marf-as-14
Thread-Index: AQHNILUFN9gIoi+juUCedEwXL/ocrZanSplQ
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2012 20:25:14 +0000
Message-ID: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FE93D@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [67.160.203.60]
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="_002_9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FE93Dexchmbx901corpclo_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cloudmark.com; s=default; t=1335126315; bh=LvQfSXpjhwHxfmPMucx1DwSiZdvlKLBBx9lZwaDV+0U=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=xGkhBqh9dgH0EpWZaaze8gH/E93QmI6OUo86HuAYdOHEy7PTQ+b2GU+dat+3hob9y PNTAb7/zSkjWuD5zxqVE2NjBMt30r0KFeuOotU6+1vu2g5/3oGDa43YLZrDq2mfchE pLTXBawOSR6UCKho+RlD+WxmvOgt5g36ZjD3q4tI=
Subject: [marf] FW: secdir review of draft-ietf-marf-as-14
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2012 20:25:16 -0000

--_002_9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FE93Dexchmbx901corpclo_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



--_002_9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FE93Dexchmbx901corpclo_
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	creation-date="Sun, 22 Apr 2012 20:25:13 GMT";
	modification-date="Sun, 22 Apr 2012 20:25:13 GMT"

Received: from mail.cloudmark.com (208.83.136.25) by ht2.cloudmark.com
 (172.22.10.81) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.355.2; Sun, 22 Apr 2012
 11:23:31 -0700
Received: from merlot.tools.ietf.org ([194.146.105.14])	by mail.cloudmark.com
 with bizsmtp	id 16Pe1j0010JfSdu016PfX9; Sun, 22 Apr 2012 11:23:40 -0700
Received: from smtp131.dfw.emailsrvr.com ([67.192.241.131]:48452)	by
 merlot.tools.ietf.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)	(Exim
 4.77)	(envelope-from <scott@hyperthought.com>)	id 1SM1RJ-0007qq-SD	for
 draft-ietf-marf-as.all@tools.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Apr 2012 20:23:15 +0200
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])	by
 smtp29.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 3D6D93982F2;
	Sun, 22 Apr 2012 14:23:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by smtp29.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender:
 scott-AT-hyperthought.com) with ESMTPSA id B25993982F5;	Sun, 22 Apr 2012
 14:23:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: Scott Kelly <scott@hyperthought.com>
To: "draft-ietf-marf-as.all@tools.ietf.org"
	<draft-ietf-marf-as.all@tools.ietf.org>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>,
	"iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: secdir review of draft-ietf-marf-as-14
Thread-Topic: secdir review of draft-ietf-marf-as-14
Thread-Index: AQHNILUFN9gIoi+juUCedEwXL/ocrQ==
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2012 18:23:00 +0000
Message-ID: <AA35B8D1-7788-4CDC-852B-0D48EAD1C201@hyperthought.com>
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthAs: Anonymous
X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthSource: exch-htcas902.corp.cloudmark.com
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-Exchange-Organization-SCL: -1
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cloudmark.com;
	s=default; t=1335119031;	bh=jhArCTNJbkjVt7BEasCEZU78QrHoE4yVKx4ncKfUPII=;
	h=From:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Date:Message-Id:To:
	 Mime-Version:Subject:Resent-To:List-ID;
	b=Ti+PRFKcC6nOTaCesLJGpjiDqpOsSttGAkZCIBo2kLqcse8fhjmdsL1uluu2jGuE/
	 zC2lxYx9rIeO15ce3XY/pfrgYX1H7hBCyVNZe6EukWimvhNmfgtBH/5tibcoB4hld3
	 SmLsxVC5Hn2kpBc592omb9vLn2cXsPupoj3Ci/0k=
list-id: <draft-ietf-marf-as.all@tools.ietf.org>
x-spam-status: No, score=-2.6 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
	autolearn=no version=3.3.2
x-spam-checker-version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on
	merlot.tools.ietf.org
x-virus-scanned: OK
x-spam-level: 
x-sa-exim-connect-ip: 67.192.241.131
x-sa-exim-mail-from: scott@hyperthought.com
x-sa-exim-scanned: Yes (on merlot.tools.ietf.org)
x-sa-exim-rcpt-to: draft-ietf-marf-as.all@tools.ietf.org
x-sa-exim-version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 26 Dec 2011 16:57:07 +0000)
x-cmae-score: 0.00
x-cmae-analysis: v=2.0 cv=fNu7LOme c=1 sm=1 a=3l1OZ3nMGJhOxEIIiQ8fVQ==:17
 a=NMoDoeZlDdoA:10 a=rYZLwT5Dt1YA:10 a=wPDyFdB5xvgA:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10
 a=Luyob8o-JWSPInQ5tZMA:9 a=IWT6-9QyXVzm_wxHthYA:7 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10
 a=3l1OZ3nMGJhOxEIIiQ8fVQ==:117
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <0030F4B97CA79E4EBB88EC730A602142@cloudmark.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0

I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing=
 effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These co=
mments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area director=
s.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like an=
y other last call comments.

The Abuse Reporting Format (ARF) is used to report email abuse feedback bet=
ween email operators, or from email operators to end user network access op=
erators. This document is an applicability statement for using the ARF in t=
hese two contexts.

The security considerations section refers the reader to the security consi=
derations discussions in RFCs 5965 and 6449, but also contains a detailed d=
iscussion of various concerns. I see no security issues with this document.


--_002_9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FE93Dexchmbx901corpclo_--

From msk@cloudmark.com  Tue Apr 24 16:33:57 2012
Return-Path: <msk@cloudmark.com>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DD5F11E809A for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 16:33:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.553
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.553 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.046, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pVgSKESuO+kJ for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 16:33:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.cloudmark.com (cmgw1.cloudmark.com [208.83.136.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 645A311E8089 for <marf@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 16:33:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com ([72.5.239.25]) by mail.cloudmark.com with bizsmtp id 1za71j0010ZaKgw01za7l8; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 16:34:16 -0700
X-CMAE-Match: 0
X-CMAE-Score: 0.00
X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=fNu7LOme c=1 sm=1 a=LdFkGDrDWH2mcjCZERnC4w==:17 a=LvckAehuu68A:10 a=vGmJt43tM7QA:10 a=zutiEJmiVI4A:10 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=AUd_NHdVAAAA:8 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=DoBm3Fp9mfi8Wj41-yQA:9 a=UNNc2HJscSv4ZvxtjA0A:7 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=JfD0Fch1gWkA:10 a=LdFkGDrDWH2mcjCZERnC4w==:117
Received: from EXCH-MBX901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::addf:849a:f71c:4a82]) by exch-htcas901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::2524:76b6:a865:539c%10]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 16:33:46 -0700
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-marf-as-14: (with DISCUSS and	COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHNITXMIbyZo9yVYUqgbSkbCNchdJaqoG6Q
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 23:33:45 +0000
Message-ID: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392810193D@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <20120423094450.10355.95358.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20120423094450.10355.95358.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [172.20.2.121]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cloudmark.com; s=default; t=1335310457; bh=vb3Mg9v0zysZW7uYYjXzd4gVf1r50h6z8em5hiw3qJc=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=abtssiqqgtvLRS1lq1VhmWNm3oMWco03FfWfzu8QoZYRwrs8ZFSx4T/biQJXcRJv7 iIGLf0nZCHZxyIFTrKEfeSQVxSPkZfRuAKM34+fQQYXvgo1b17VtHYihMcKxtgVZWH 50jRnl+gWRqcbBEsTWEeQFXGEX18gSs07VTo+cUc=
Cc: "draft-ietf-marf-as@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-marf-as@tools.ietf.org>, "marf-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <marf-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, "marf@ietf.org" <marf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [marf] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-marf-as-14: (with DISCUSS and	COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 23:33:57 -0000
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From msk@cloudmark.com  Tue Apr 24 17:07:21 2012
Return-Path: <msk@cloudmark.com>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 305A111E80B7 for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 17:07:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.554
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.554 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.045, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pZnsPjFqx2T3 for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 17:07:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.cloudmark.com (cmgw1.cloudmark.com [208.83.136.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7821511E8074 for <marf@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 17:07:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com ([72.5.239.25]) by mail.cloudmark.com with bizsmtp id 20701j0010ZaKgw01070Bb; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 17:07:09 -0700
X-CMAE-Match: 0
X-CMAE-Score: 0.00
X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=MJriabll c=1 sm=1 a=LdFkGDrDWH2mcjCZERnC4w==:17 a=LvckAehuu68A:10 a=AHqzFcZrOoIA:10 a=zutiEJmiVI4A:10 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=1WDJcUDf4cpeTgl6r8AA:9 a=8JOdLyVBSFFqCqbUh8YA:7 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=LdFkGDrDWH2mcjCZERnC4w==:117
Received: from EXCH-MBX901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::addf:849a:f71c:4a82]) by exch-htcas901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::2524:76b6:a865:539c%10]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 17:07:00 -0700
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-marf-as-14: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHNIUT9dXhvv/MTJUGjHfYfmR7vKZaqpzvg
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 00:06:59 +0000
Message-ID: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039281019C1@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <20120423113349.2910.29271.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20120423113349.2910.29271.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [172.20.2.121]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cloudmark.com; s=default; t=1335312429; bh=X++Xircp4gLb6BsyDhhnzQ6Qgc/EHbCJx9Exn8VOp8U=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=NjXrOW48/tyCQxdU4hxugN/4SU6zbCihsh3DYACT7MQ9NWmkFSSvFISj75TGpCS30 aVtsejtpy5Ds4ebZwnjWYDY7Y2acVbfSdfCHI26M/nhqr0yIuAgNNgy/kfvMXD9jlW Q4vKbayLojjFfCGWIms3SwvHnq+uP5j/i/XfISnw=
Cc: "draft-ietf-marf-as@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-marf-as@tools.ietf.org>, "marf-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <marf-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, "marf@ietf.org" <marf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [marf] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-marf-as-14: (with	COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 00:07:21 -0000
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From msk@cloudmark.com  Tue Apr 24 22:16:03 2012
Return-Path: <msk@cloudmark.com>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F39021F870E for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 22:16:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.635
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.635 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.036, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tn9MgtqbDF1A for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 22:16:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.cloudmark.com (cmgw1.cloudmark.com [208.83.136.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 382C921F8701 for <marf@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 22:15:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com ([72.5.239.26]) by mail.cloudmark.com with bizsmtp id 25Fk1j0010as01C015FkWh; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 22:15:53 -0700
X-CMAE-Match: 0
X-CMAE-Score: 0.00
X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=MJriabll c=1 sm=1 a=QMZKka45TBd+hNGtXG2bIg==:17 a=ldJM1g7oyCcA:10 a=2yULNDzDLVcA:10 a=zutiEJmiVI4A:10 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=Z80JlwQ0AAAA:8 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=u6cicfyKABuvnULZKwwA:9 a=0Um7TzdPG6ezEnD0rpIA:7 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=0MAqpqVwYqEA:10 a=QMZKka45TBd+hNGtXG2bIg==:117
Received: from EXCH-MBX901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::addf:849a:f71c:4a82]) by exch-htcas902.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::54de:dc60:5f3e:334%10]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 22:15:44 -0700
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Robert Sparks' Discuss on draft-ietf-marf-as-14: (with DISCUSS and	COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHNIjJaeEooO/OWr0mELwJupYTFTpaq++ow
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 05:15:43 +0000
Message-ID: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E003928101C27@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <20120424155216.17623.92039.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20120424155216.17623.92039.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [67.160.203.60]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cloudmark.com; s=default; t=1335330953; bh=rOuW+Ab1P0XqfG2SWl9muauoTiix//fuzMxbfRMb8wQ=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=HURk8wdTEAp7fwNbIb/nauZV9z689Ay+rfV3vGSYxWfcq3Cl00HPTn5TSHSfLJJie sjaaNio7weIa01xNq8ugYdqLUO2IBOin8Fs2LsVh6Dy5BxmJsqUlyY1LFIL6QqgjxE qkzVfkLbzqDoJNFgCthxgKTNF/2gFiI7UXasbuos=
Cc: "draft-ietf-marf-as@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-marf-as@tools.ietf.org>, "marf-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <marf-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, "marf@ietf.org" <marf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [marf] Robert Sparks' Discuss on draft-ietf-marf-as-14: (with DISCUSS and	COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 05:16:03 -0000
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From msk@cloudmark.com  Tue Apr 24 22:30:03 2012
Return-Path: <msk@cloudmark.com>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68DC121F8667 for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 22:30:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.634
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.634 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.036, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wF0EQs8toCUo for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 22:30:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.cloudmark.com (cmgw1.cloudmark.com [208.83.136.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 496E721F8666 for <marf@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 22:30:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com ([72.5.239.26]) by mail.cloudmark.com with bizsmtp id 25W11j0010as01C015W1aR; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 22:30:01 -0700
X-CMAE-Match: 0
X-CMAE-Score: 0.00
X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=MJriabll c=1 sm=1 a=QMZKka45TBd+hNGtXG2bIg==:17 a=ldJM1g7oyCcA:10 a=YqYjYCUSHBwA:10 a=zutiEJmiVI4A:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=LqCzzTgQAAAA:8 a=Glfapu3kS7aoubB-eKoA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=AT3tKAeYR9kA:10 a=yMhMjlubAAAA:8 a=SSmOFEACAAAA:8 a=xm4BELdeGjED4zU5EtYA:7 a=gKO2Hq4RSVkA:10 a=UiCQ7L4-1S4A:10 a=hTZeC7Yk6K0A:10 a=QMZKka45TBd+hNGtXG2bIg==:117
Received: from EXCH-MBX901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::addf:849a:f71c:4a82]) by exch-htcas902.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::54de:dc60:5f3e:334%10]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 22:30:01 -0700
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: "marf@ietf.org" <marf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Proposed changes to draft-ietf-marf-as
Thread-Index: Ac0ipHVkVfh2i6HcSRStlMqNZFB0BA==
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 05:30:00 +0000
Message-ID: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E003928101C5B@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [67.160.203.60]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E003928101C5Bexchmbx901corpclo_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cloudmark.com; s=default; t=1335331801; bh=yTFIL6tiKM/dYkwhnrIOWEbIDONzy6Q/I5jE/fKPaBo=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=fCm84DbOhF/Sgyuftd6LOYdQQj+d1QEEKxc8M9oIWL6R+mXlj9/E2P+Dt15iF3evx L0PmgpZyj5emfD5fSSl2XgM3VELyxxOuMV1zLZGtFX7Xm2ODJLKrVMiRTQxSOk/17E lL8uaBX6cSJuWqYabMrxBjS5nsO6NTJfL9fU8UDo=
Subject: [marf] Proposed changes to draft-ietf-marf-as
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 05:30:03 -0000

--_000_9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E003928101C5Bexchmbx901corpclo_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hello all,

I've got a diff between the current version and what I propose as our respo=
nse to the two DISCUSS positions from the IESG about this draft.  Please re=
view and comment ASAP.

The diff: http://www.blackops.org/~msk/marf-as.html

-MSK

--_000_9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E003928101C5Bexchmbx901corpclo_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-micr=
osoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" =
xmlns:m=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns=3D"http:=
//www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dus-ascii"=
>
<meta name=3D"Generator" content=3D"Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
	{font-family:"Cambria Math";
	panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
	{font-family:Calibri;
	panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
	{margin:0in;
	margin-bottom:.0001pt;
	font-size:11.0pt;
	font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
	{mso-style-priority:99;
	color:blue;
	text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
	{mso-style-priority:99;
	color:purple;
	text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
	{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
	font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
	color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
	{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
	{size:8.5in 11.0in;
	margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
	{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext=3D"edit" spidmax=3D"1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext=3D"edit">
<o:idmap v:ext=3D"edit" data=3D"1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=3D"EN-US" link=3D"blue" vlink=3D"purple">
<div class=3D"WordSection1">
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">Hello all,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">I&#8217;ve got a diff between the current version an=
d what I propose as our response to the two DISCUSS positions from the IESG=
 about this draft.&nbsp; Please review and comment ASAP.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">The diff: <a href=3D"http://www.blackops.org/~msk/ma=
rf-as.html">
http://www.blackops.org/~msk/marf-as.html</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">-MSK<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>

--_000_9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E003928101C5Bexchmbx901corpclo_--

From johnl@iecc.com  Tue Apr 24 22:30:03 2012
Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.com>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCD9921F8666 for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 22:30:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -111.065
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-111.065 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.134, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id z8KAvXbaOX+G for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 22:30:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95BC321F8665 for <marf@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 22:30:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 13373 invoked from network); 25 Apr 2012 05:30:01 -0000
Received: from leila.iecc.com (64.57.183.34) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 25 Apr 2012 05:30:01 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:vbr-info; s=4f978bd9.xn--30v786c.k1204; i=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=12JVuZeB3XEHfLRhul+/hyA5AuNPzuJSAwy7dRSUOPk=; b=Ur+c+KU79v/z2e810DLMyvI3sfYTy3a0oQ5j4Y08UjJUYVBcooecBlls6/2m0LwVcNGFmv7BVufcQe9B9SDAXrJt8F7n4p+FnJ7J2OUu2wdl8+sgWCflo51S1Qc9g3us1X+Oshi9z6oaWNFTYx0ivjbzZFZKFh6rjaWL0/OYjwg=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:vbr-info; s=4f978bd9.xn--30v786c.k1204; olt=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=12JVuZeB3XEHfLRhul+/hyA5AuNPzuJSAwy7dRSUOPk=; b=Bk47HUgxT7O3ru1D6LfvPPHIgD5/Xk0Io88dLBdahBlDBqVvmMZFwSoCluG8tRyY9J2QLIFsqT5WGKkRWbu7kcpyoKM0MFIIWFRsidZESmpnfmSSzzUR1lUQc/tCkkfNmEu/rSWlYCQsXHQBciibC7HW6ijUdx6g7JaXTOkoKCs=
VBR-Info: md=iecc.com; mc=all; mv=dwl.spamhaus.org
Date: 25 Apr 2012 05:29:39 -0000
Message-ID: <20120425052939.92779.qmail@joyce.lan>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: marf@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E003928101C27@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
Organization: 
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [marf] Robert Sparks' Discuss on draft-ietf-marf-as-14: (with DISCUSS and	COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 05:30:03 -0000

>> In section 5.1 item 1, is there a typical unstandardized out-of-band
>> mechanism for telling unsolicited reporters to please stop that you can
>> call out as an example (an existence proof)?
>
>I'll see if I can find one.  I don't know of one personally, but someone in the
>working group probably does.

Given that the unsolicited report has a working return address, the
recipient of the report writes back and says, in English, we're not
responsible for this mail, stop sending them to us.

R's,
John

From vesely@tana.it  Wed Apr 25 02:06:58 2012
Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D7C821F877B for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 02:06:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.628
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.628 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.091,  BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4E96gOK9JzeR for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 02:06:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (mail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C37821F8655 for <marf@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 02:06:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=test; t=1335344814; bh=wHOwqr79aqHZNlKxROh30xFBwZDtINeZSN1M0/96sEI=; l=982; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:CC:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=c4ADh5yFGxlx2JvMxC0s18pelsr3sUyP1VuplS7MicsL8/srCQx+IuAz2JMJRhOoj gX4GZ+8Evq5P0hYGkibTPa8mkQ9TPVCQYYh9v3IfqeavP5p1yAIdjAn2Xt/4hqp0ku l+faiwVqeRYacdWw0aUws4PbW0jpb44KmpUSCMpQ=
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; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 11:06:54 +0200 id 00000000005DC033.000000004F97BEAE.00004712
Message-ID: <4F97BEAE.9000707@tana.it>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 11:06:54 +0200
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
References: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E003928101C5B@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
In-Reply-To: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E003928101C5B@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: marf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [marf] Proposed changes to draft-ietf-marf-as
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 09:06:58 -0000

On Wed 25/Apr/2012 10:18:50 +0200 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>  
> The diff: http://www.blackops.org/~msk/marf-as.html

  Further introduction to this topic may be found in [RFC6449],
  which	is effectively an Applicability Statement written outside of
  the IETF and thus never achieved IETF consensus. Much of the
  content for that document was input to this one.

That's a useful clarification, but possibly not as accurate as it
could.  If I knew IETF standardization enough, I'd propose text to say
what we mean to do, something along the lines of (AIUI):

  Further advice on this topic can be found in [RFC6449], which is
  effectively an Applicability Statement written outside of the
  IETF.  Rather than modify that document and then turn it into an
  IETF Standard, the IETF republished it as an Informational document
  and then publishes this document, which confers IETF Standard
  status to selected parts of the former one, while updating it as
  appropriate.

From barryleiba@gmail.com  Wed Apr 25 04:46:58 2012
Return-Path: <barryleiba@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C9EC21F867B; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 04:46:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.977
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SFJVxM7Edldh; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 04:46:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com (mail-ob0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E719321F8686; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 04:46:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by obbwd20 with SMTP id wd20so2747547obb.31 for <multiple recipients>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 04:46:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=SYRfBmevdL4sfo/wqojnyNRHro9a53cdFPtzlQZkW/c=; b=l3xJxZMzKfSX/gKpWKRGWFh5GFFZ20QhjDfUbcuc+t4J/krIk8udBXiO+ln6jQhBnT zypnOMp4XZt1vD+cg45O0Vh6EWbV5PHXiLbZ/hjn/MG9lwgS0AkjTtN5A/gyt2eXd/iN Gce0zoo5zqlrcz7vAEEKVbEtPcLaR0/Igi7C820YBqE9OHdiAkmjFGIAlIWlep+tGEP2 XXYjYuRW+esf1T49NR6KH8jrdpUOUGf6bXLSEbFLqWvZ9r2XYZgg5hwFC+VnABjGJC3L A3b7yVkGRp5FxTgYHEnFHiFPMr4IzhWLQFBaAr0IaHJWFW5G0aM+j5kTu0gFgrCF4qg4 vmJw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.60.11.166 with SMTP id r6mr2966005oeb.2.1335354417503; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 04:46:57 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com
Received: by 10.60.10.68 with HTTP; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 04:46:57 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4F97CC0C.6010209@cisco.com>
References: <20120423094450.10355.95358.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392810193D@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <4F97CC0C.6010209@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 07:46:57 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: FoUkOJKoVImzv3GqaH2EIl2dYkQ
Message-ID: <CALaySJJmpyj-j=ybsLzwJdNHcYwgTOuhA+U4CezmRpx3TgLX+A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: "draft-ietf-marf-as@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-marf-as@tools.ietf.org>, "marf@ietf.org" <marf@ietf.org>, "marf-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <marf-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [marf] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-marf-as-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 11:46:58 -0000

> Let me ask a very basic question to everybody, including the other IESG
> members: what is the goal of an Applicability Statement?
> 1. Explain how the technical specifications are used "in the wild", as you
> mentioned. So a deployment experience document
> 2. Or explain how the technical specifications should be used for the
> different use cases (generally specified in a requirement document)
>
> When I read RFC 2026 section 3.2, I conclude for 2.

Yes, 2.  But an AS doesn't necessarily (perhaps usually doesn't) cover
every use case.  Consider the greylisting document that's also on this
week's telechat: it's describing how to use SMTP for a specific use
case, to do a specific thing.  Many AS documents will be of that
nature, talking about certain use cases, but not every possible one.

> Therefore, I'm in favor to mention how fraud, not-spam, virus should be
> used.

The working group chose to center the marf-as document on the cases
that are actually in use today.  I think that's a fine choice.  It
might be reasonable to have one or more AS documents about the
less-common use cases, and that/those could be written later.  This
isn't that document.

Barry

From barryleiba@gmail.com  Wed Apr 25 05:45:28 2012
Return-Path: <barryleiba@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B33E921F8700; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 05:45:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.977
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XFgERZhmITnn; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 05:45:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qc0-f172.google.com (mail-qc0-f172.google.com [209.85.216.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09C2421F86C5; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 05:45:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qcsq13 with SMTP id q13so26955qcs.31 for <multiple recipients>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 05:45:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=PJqg7v0UYaDNiT52q08BFzI13+gD/iHjJDOyxnHCbq4=; b=v4VXFdQSIwMlWvcxn+yDxvnj6r0uDDjNHIY+8Cmg/qTcDVA/m64AcZ+8vNVGaGC96M fxd2+EI96NpvkoFVbUZuQSEgPZ4qQjH6Vstz2aCbO0ZvY8y8IqrldS7uylm27GRJxgq+ Mo8DwTsZAccO+8NfQHhaHDaNmAjnTj3P8ItZOUjSV++lHHo3T9ZhaXnBq00uTXMdkKOM Qxq2ps3W9SQyWR+Rfs4g+BIjh88tw3e9/kAXjDGhPXkRRxKgHbxsZBRZNnBRaxP5mJrK Qu46JaDgFccD1AzgZWLRSUbsD0sSsC3yaCUErnMcNxkkeRslNl1p7laTX5euJrulO19k +ixQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.224.184.70 with SMTP id cj6mr1812270qab.77.1335357927600; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 05:45:27 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com
Received: by 10.229.220.19 with HTTP; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 05:45:27 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4F97EF53.9070408@cisco.com>
References: <20120423094450.10355.95358.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392810193D@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <4F97CC0C.6010209@cisco.com> <CALaySJJmpyj-j=ybsLzwJdNHcYwgTOuhA+U4CezmRpx3TgLX+A@mail.gmail.com> <4F97EF53.9070408@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 08:45:27 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: SF9gXjVhedbHlCeDqDQ9KN-ndDw
Message-ID: <CALaySJLRGU9rAXf81y6=ZmuAvnqTQnF1=OTMmdRWxANxu613sQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "draft-ietf-marf-as@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-marf-as@tools.ietf.org>, "marf-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <marf-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "marf@ietf.org" <marf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [marf] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-marf-as-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 12:45:29 -0000

>> Yes, 2. =A0But an AS doesn't necessarily (perhaps usually doesn't) cover
>> every use case. =A0Consider the greylisting document that's also on this
>> week's telechat: it's describing how to use SMTP for a specific use
>> case, to do a specific thing. =A0Many AS documents will be of that
>> nature, talking about certain use cases, but not every possible one.
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-appsawg-greylisting/ is
> different, as its scope is well defined, starting with the title: "Email
> Greylisting: An Applicability Statement for SMTP"
> On the other hand, "Creation and Use of Email Feedback Reports: An
> Applicability Statement for the Abuse Reporting Format (ARF)" points to a
> generic ARF application statement... which is not.

Hm.  This doesn't cover all use cases for ARF any more than
greylisting covers all use cases for SMTP, so I don't see the point.
But I'll leave it to Murray to respond further on this.  Maybe he has
some other thoughts.[1]

Barry

[1] Well, of course, he does... but I mean thoughts related to this point.

From internet-drafts@ietf.org  Wed Apr 25 06:47:16 2012
Return-Path: <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 465A721F86D7; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 06:47:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.52
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.52 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.079, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Eur+r6vO0jj6; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 06:47:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA98721F86A0; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 06:47:15 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: internet-drafts@ietf.org
To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.01p1
Message-ID: <20120425134715.5816.8004.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 06:47:15 -0700
Cc: marf@ietf.org
Subject: [marf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-marf-as-15.txt
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 13:47:16 -0000

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director=
ies. This draft is a work item of the Messaging Abuse Reporting Format Work=
ing Group of the IETF.

	Title           : Creation and Use of Email Feedback Reports: An Applicabi=
lity Statement for the Abuse Reporting Format (ARF)
	Author(s)       : J.D. Falk
                          M. Kucherawy
	Filename        : draft-ietf-marf-as-15.txt
	Pages           : 15
	Date            : 2012-04-25

   RFC 5965 defines an extensible, machine-readable format intended for
   mail operators to report feedback about received email to other
   parties.  This Applicability Statement describes common methods for
   utilizing this format for reporting both abuse and authentication
   failure events.  Mailbox Providers of any size, mail sending
   entities, and end users can use these methods as a basis to create
   procedures that best suit them.  Some related optional mechanisms are
   also discussed.


A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-marf-as-15.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-marf-as-15.txt

The IETF datatracker page for this Internet-Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-marf-as/


From sklist@kitterman.com  Wed Apr 25 06:49:31 2012
Return-Path: <sklist@kitterman.com>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73ECD21F86C2 for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 06:49:31 -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 ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j+IUziTkkHFN for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 06:49:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout02.controlledmail.com (mailout02.controlledmail.com [72.81.252.18]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0DD821F86B2 for <marf@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 06:49:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout02.controlledmail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailout02.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FB1F20E40E9; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 09:49:29 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=kitterman.com; s=2007-00; t=1335361769; bh=nA4lweWEDEM3DzW479feY2noG5vkxi/TGBnCVwA/pG4=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type; b=MSjiwdJiYacLarwkW8QlE+KTOWLs03xEjiCjtcXsGjAXSA/zQGp/8lBSN08qc87We 8a6URiAbJQ+ldVPty4GQaTlMnO8t/dj40R6HdOPLbPoazRwdnJUFD58KdVMEMZORgI BKnpbCQsHPA1o8a8zvFzOtsO30GM06dZMGsID3Og=
Received: from scott-latitude-e6320.localnet (static-72-81-252-21.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [72.81.252.21]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailout02.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7F9F720E4099;  Wed, 25 Apr 2012 09:49:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
To: marf@ietf.org
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 09:49:28 -0400
Message-ID: <5386985.GhKIFnpsVj@scott-latitude-e6320>
User-Agent: KMail/4.8.2 (Linux/3.2.0-23-generic-pae; KDE/4.8.2; i686; ; )
In-Reply-To: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E003928101C5B@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E003928101C5B@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-AV-Checked: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
Subject: Re: [marf] Proposed changes to draft-ietf-marf-as
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 13:49:31 -0000

On Wednesday, April 25, 2012 05:30:00 AM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> Hello all,
> 
> I've got a diff between the current version and what I propose as our
> response to the two DISCUSS positions from the IESG about this draft. 
> Please review and comment ASAP.
> 
> The diff: http://www.blackops.org/~msk/marf-as.html
> 
> -MSK

I don't find much value in the changes, but if that's what it takes to get 
approved, OK.  A few specific comments though:

 - The addition to section 4.5.1 isn't quite correct.  Elsewhere we tell 
report senders not to assume different types of reports will be treated 
differently, so I don't think there's any need for receivers to update to do 
so.  I think the most that can be said is that receivers ought to arrange for 
a reasonable default result if an unknown type is encountered.

 - Part of the diff starting page 7, line 4: How about anticipate or expect 
instead of believe.  Belief isn't much of an engineering term.

Scott K

From msk@cloudmark.com  Wed Apr 25 06:54:02 2012
Return-Path: <msk@cloudmark.com>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 266FE21F872E for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 06:54:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.634
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.634 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.035, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wGsd-kq5vdIo for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 06:53:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.cloudmark.com (cmgw1.cloudmark.com [208.83.136.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CF8A21F86FE for <marf@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 06:53:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com ([72.5.239.26]) by mail.cloudmark.com with bizsmtp id 2Dtc1j0010as01C01DtcSm; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 06:53:36 -0700
X-CMAE-Match: 0
X-CMAE-Score: 0.00
X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=MJriabll c=1 sm=1 a=QMZKka45TBd+hNGtXG2bIg==:17 a=ldJM1g7oyCcA:10 a=DdGZrSWdj7kA:10 a=zutiEJmiVI4A:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=sDN6jlLyAAAA:8 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=i3N05akNdjdLHfHm3lMA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=a5MtBNqIqo4A:10 a=lZB815dzVvQA:10 a=QMZKka45TBd+hNGtXG2bIg==:117
Received: from EXCH-MBX901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::addf:849a:f71c:4a82]) by exch-htcas902.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::54de:dc60:5f3e:334%10]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 06:53:35 -0700
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: "marf@ietf.org" <marf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [marf] Proposed changes to draft-ietf-marf-as
Thread-Index: Ac0ipHVkVfh2i6HcSRStlMqNZFB0BAAgHKAAAA6aZoA=
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 13:53:35 +0000
Message-ID: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E003928102204@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E003928101C5B@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <5386985.GhKIFnpsVj@scott-latitude-e6320>
In-Reply-To: <5386985.GhKIFnpsVj@scott-latitude-e6320>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [67.160.203.60]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cloudmark.com; s=default; t=1335362016; bh=EMn/S9zxTnB1BTDweFBRtbDVZ/Vn/w6mv4in2ucULxM=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=IJhUgv7rhxgCw2AGVyyrEA4gMpclNhTjlXcU8y6CQcV5L3falAAzipRv6IaBV6ewQ ri0BPJiWe77NwmhJL0umpuCpQdM+QTV4rcth+7noqeoaF3YG7QXJYV3TuxOxTCG3yN jC+gQ8tayI8CGr6YjuZYf+B/rxxrBHy7+3xq0Pcg=
Subject: Re: [marf] Proposed changes to draft-ietf-marf-as
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 13:54:02 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Kitterman [mailto:sklist@kitterman.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 6:49 AM
> To: marf@ietf.org
> Cc: Murray S. Kucherawy
> Subject: Re: [marf] Proposed changes to draft-ietf-marf-as
>=20
> I don't find much value in the changes, but if that's what it takes to
> get approved, OK.  A few specific comments though:
>=20
>  - The addition to section 4.5.1 isn't quite correct.  Elsewhere we
> tell report senders not to assume different types of reports will be
> treated differently, so I don't think there's any need for receivers to
> update to do so.  I think the most that can be said is that receivers
> ought to arrange for a reasonable default result if an unknown type is
> encountered.

There issue is that we make it a MUST to accept all types listed in a regis=
try.  How would an implementation do that?  There's no protocol to query th=
e registry for new types, so it can't really be done live.  The IESG member=
 is saying we need to explain to people what's involved in satisfying that =
MUST.

>  - Part of the diff starting page 7, line 4: How about anticipate or
> expect instead of believe.  Belief isn't much of an engineering term.

Good point.  We can patch that up with an RFC Editor note, unless another n=
ew version is warranted.

-MSK

From sklist@kitterman.com  Wed Apr 25 07:08:54 2012
Return-Path: <sklist@kitterman.com>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 946A121F86EB for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 07:08:54 -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=[AWL=0.000,  BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SdEjQE5KdSsW for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 07:08:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout02.controlledmail.com (mailout02.controlledmail.com [72.81.252.18]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C28F921F86C2 for <marf@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 07:08:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout02.controlledmail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailout02.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5778020E40E9; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 10:08:53 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=kitterman.com; s=2007-00; t=1335362933; bh=L7vOZHAlLHWsqIaNVePX6Q+eWAy+aJUNJowbULtPt2I=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type; b=G/Z6jDZSMF7YW+oe6J8dLCViD+Pcp0IT+SUPZhoucyb9kGXPuACQY+zYvYO4+vitz yNNke4DAbn+fpZZKQtLp6RafS8QJ/79oobCV0h8+h+4u6hDBJJ5HqFrwRZ1cZX4guq ByoN0qbHrFZNHcB9gU0onUMfdmlu2KqEVFOHA+WI=
Received: from scott-latitude-e6320.localnet (static-72-81-252-21.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [72.81.252.21]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailout02.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 38D4820E4099;  Wed, 25 Apr 2012 10:08:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
To: marf@ietf.org
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 10:08:52 -0400
Message-ID: <5301521.gxfVyjcsls@scott-latitude-e6320>
User-Agent: KMail/4.8.2 (Linux/3.2.0-23-generic-pae; KDE/4.8.2; i686; ; )
In-Reply-To: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E003928102204@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E003928101C5B@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <5386985.GhKIFnpsVj@scott-latitude-e6320> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E003928102204@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-AV-Checked: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
Subject: Re: [marf] Proposed changes to draft-ietf-marf-as
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 14:08:54 -0000

On Wednesday, April 25, 2012 01:53:35 PM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> >  - The addition to section 4.5.1 isn't quite correct.  Elsewhere we
> >
> > tell report senders not to assume different types of reports will be
> > treated differently, so I don't think there's any need for receivers to
> > update to do so.  I think the most that can be said is that receivers
> > ought to arrange for a reasonable default result if an unknown type is
> > encountered.
> 
> There issue is that we make it a MUST to accept all types listed in a
> registry.  How would an implementation do that?  There's no protocol to
> query the registry for new types, so it can't really be done live.  The
> IESG member is saying we need to explain to people what's involved in
> satisfying that MUST.

We don't really define accept.  If I "250 OK" to accept the message and then 
discard unknown types, that's a win from that perspective.  I probably 
wouldn't do it that way, but that's not inconsistent with the requirement.  I 
don't think it's necessary to have a list of all currently possible values to 
satisfy the requirement to accept all types.

Scott K

From msk@cloudmark.com  Wed Apr 25 07:20:11 2012
Return-Path: <msk@cloudmark.com>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B076021F8715 for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 07:20:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.632
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.632 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.033, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id H8Huj3FPlbFb for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 07:20:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.cloudmark.com (cmgw1.cloudmark.com [208.83.136.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A66B21F86D9 for <marf@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 07:20:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com ([72.5.239.25]) by mail.cloudmark.com with bizsmtp id 2ELN1j0020ZaKgw01ELN87; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 07:20:31 -0700
X-CMAE-Match: 0
X-CMAE-Score: 0.00
X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=fNu7LOme c=1 sm=1 a=LdFkGDrDWH2mcjCZERnC4w==:17 a=ldJM1g7oyCcA:10 a=vGmJt43tM7QA:10 a=zutiEJmiVI4A:10 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=AUd_NHdVAAAA:8 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=jex0pmakYXYPF1AzOL8A:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=JfD0Fch1gWkA:10 a=lZB815dzVvQA:10 a=LdFkGDrDWH2mcjCZERnC4w==:117
Received: from EXCH-MBX901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::addf:849a:f71c:4a82]) by exch-htcas901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::2524:76b6:a865:539c%10]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 07:20:01 -0700
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-marf-as-14: (with DISCUSS and	COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHNITXMIbyZo9yVYUqgbSkbCNchdJaqoG6QgAEn8gD//9F14A==
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 14:20:00 +0000
Message-ID: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039281022B8@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <20120423094450.10355.95358.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392810193D@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <4F97CC0C.6010209@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F97CC0C.6010209@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [67.160.203.60]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cloudmark.com; s=default; t=1335363632; bh=SQ4BGpKAhjTZjXUbNkZesZ32acbqmqm35Gd57YGo0ew=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=nZi3X87EGJfvLCO9bOJTdYqS8svVMHOkkX8UbAQ2/VOgTOBU4yV9+/4xrKlg2xxBD 5SCJ48K5YD3slMZm5qZv0mbW8XGnxc3FHEmCGhdCmyOpyioG2hX/qXEdF+1cL5sUjR WKHpW3G/OOJIj/ArpbPD2ZshJHW6FQDpK45sdXTM=
Cc: "draft-ietf-marf-as@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-marf-as@tools.ietf.org>, "marf-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <marf-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "marf@ietf.org" <marf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [marf] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-marf-as-14: (with DISCUSS and	COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 14:20:11 -0000
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=

From ajs@anvilwalrusden.com  Wed Apr 25 08:16:51 2012
Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3135121F8794 for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 08:16:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.652
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.652 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.053, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RTtq6EV9muSx for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 08:16:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C123721F8782 for <marf@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 08:16:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.yitter.info (69-196-144-227.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.227]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 26A641ECB41C for <marf@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 15:16:50 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 11:16:47 -0400
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: marf@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20120425151642.GD60024@mail.yitter.info>
References: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E003928101C5B@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <5386985.GhKIFnpsVj@scott-latitude-e6320> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E003928102204@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <5301521.gxfVyjcsls@scott-latitude-e6320>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5301521.gxfVyjcsls@scott-latitude-e6320>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Subject: Re: [marf] Proposed changes to draft-ietf-marf-as
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 15:16:51 -0000

On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 10:08:52AM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> don't think it's necessary to have a list of all currently possible values to 
> satisfy the requirement to accept all types.

In that case, it's a preposterous MUST requirement.  What that really
means is "accept anything", not "accept all types".

Best,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com

From johnl@iecc.com  Wed Apr 25 10:16:45 2012
Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.com>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D81A21F8800 for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 10:16:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -111.075
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-111.075 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.124, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gC35CtyoBevT for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 10:16:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01B9221F87E7 for <marf@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 10:16:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 57026 invoked from network); 25 Apr 2012 17:16:40 -0000
Received: from leila.iecc.com (64.57.183.34) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 25 Apr 2012 17:16:40 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:vbr-info; s=4f983178.xn--yuvv84g.k1204; i=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=ZwkBtp4bYRiZhqOomiuWM70xKEmi0vI0le9wucYlofI=; b=Nru3zPJM5/2psDHRYLB+D9v3NN4gKOkZ7OlkCPL3z+XEq7autgWhc6PifhAR9o/N/DxMNNmtaCbVMOsGOE6lxZp9IlHk6wvLdxfPLIYHZPlAVak57fnAt8uNzbxNTwQtAtIyfqhXfUxRqRepv//LRCALyvz3WYMlwxSoeUu7tiQ=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:vbr-info; s=4f983178.xn--yuvv84g.k1204; olt=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=ZwkBtp4bYRiZhqOomiuWM70xKEmi0vI0le9wucYlofI=; b=LkW/+rEwLDWamuZABjyIXc8+7x4NVzlvoC9sjs1e9O5U/T/ubc9OJ0jAzpS+n9/hMwVnrgm0bJDVscoxZBbK/UK5rOXhIGSF2BB9lf62l1DQ0qE0PjpdLFHzJwj2sJ4ItvmMifRauw/4uR18qLeG8/MYHekT3474u/NnOPoteI4=
VBR-Info: md=iecc.com; mc=all; mv=dwl.spamhaus.org
Date: 25 Apr 2012 17:16:18 -0000
Message-ID: <20120425171618.21200.qmail@joyce.lan>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: marf@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E003928101C5B@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
Organization: 
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [marf] Proposed changes to draft-ietf-marf-as
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 17:16:45 -0000

>The diff: http://www.blackops.org/~msk/marf-as.html

Looks fine to me.  If I were picking nits I'd suggest that the sentence about
RFC6449 say:

 Further introduction to this topic may be found in [RFC6449], which is
 effectively an Applicability Statement written outside of the IETF and
 so it is unknown whether it would represent IETF consensus.

But it's fine as is.

R's,
John



From vesely@tana.it  Wed Apr 25 10:51:56 2012
Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 426E921F8834 for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 10:51:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.633
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.633 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.086,  BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id o+RhGIbrHk6E for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 10:51:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E35F21F8830 for <marf@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 10:51:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=test; t=1335376312; bh=LXXC4JDBhfChv9uYGTvIGC4s4dNAHiSvQUiP3QH2pH8=; l=1360; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=Tm37NGWM7vb7TWUryK5hRsi08fve9BvRThx0Uxo/D0X2OVphxNBYsbx6JSmpBh41P NQdU7W6GSXC1knI9ruUIaXTs3d5cZ2+vA4/LyGF6InKUAdufVvrNC9m59/pvKnPJ65 78xafdTMDnVBJUX5kyeD1PsZMWL8GGrRoDWx2S6k=
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; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 19:51:52 +0200 id 00000000005DC039.000000004F9839B8.00003F48
Message-ID: <4F9839B8.7070203@tana.it>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 19:51:52 +0200
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: marf@ietf.org
References: <20120423094450.10355.95358.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392810193D@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <4F97CC0C.6010209@cisco.com> <CALaySJJmpyj-j=ybsLzwJdNHcYwgTOuhA+U4CezmRpx3TgLX+A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJJmpyj-j=ybsLzwJdNHcYwgTOuhA+U4CezmRpx3TgLX+A@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [marf] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-marf-as-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 17:51:56 -0000

On Wed 25/Apr/2012 19:40:50 +0200 Barry Leiba wrote:

>> Let me ask a very basic question to everybody, including the other IESG
>> members: what is the goal of an Applicability Statement?
>> 1. Explain how the technical specifications are used "in the wild", as you
>> mentioned. So a deployment experience document
>> 2. Or explain how the technical specifications should be used for the
>> different use cases (generally specified in a requirement document)
>>
>> When I read RFC 2026 section 3.2, I conclude for 2.
> 
> Yes, 2.  But an AS doesn't necessarily (perhaps usually doesn't) cover
> every use case.  Consider the greylisting document that's also on this
> week's telechat: it's describing how to use SMTP for a specific use
> case, to do a specific thing.  Many AS documents will be of that
> nature, talking about certain use cases, but not every possible one.

This is not the first time I see exchanges of clarifications on this
topic among people whom I consider IETF experts.  So, I'm worried what
will average readers of this document be able to conclude if they
happen to wonder about the status of the recommendations made or
referred to therein.  I doubt that citing [RFC2026] suffices.

That was the sense of my previous post,
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf/current/msg02329.html
in case it wasn't clear.

From barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com  Wed Apr 25 11:43:10 2012
Return-Path: <barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EB7221F88D8 for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 11:43:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.975
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.975 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.002, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QHeyYVgN1mcO for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 11:43:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com (mail-yx0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6541421F88D6 for <marf@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 11:43:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by yenm5 with SMTP id m5so450548yen.31 for <marf@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 11:43:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=OrbOCznH2L9sesUaCKMmGo3HXPkRS3twZCofWEJh650=; b=ZDh7HLW5oZ0W7De4/ce3Jxbhulm+BUBhKXvhMmhMKdOSSyc5FMHhJNyhnEJn5X7Hii t32EQwPFoUTryJ5uf+FbozfO10a3jsuTIdI3lV0w+Q62zJ/QWIB7ZAhkDAOR4FdW3Fuo DLBFSdFEETdmGx7GogC6VrMRoXdLgrmWxz2ee150yb6oDN4zdBnjeKuv87DQEQ8my878 kk9/H7niK2mCxFMrbjd7ncrBSzXV/8TLC2Whdl0KCao9sEbUUoBLRHSgROIKvLFi93wu cT/wxVM7gFSTYgkEcSTv2hDkOkjsqFg7dZLq9yLUsqtKK5cOjO4K8C1mh5T5u7Uuw/nm M+ew==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.236.161.3 with SMTP id v3mr3412194yhk.128.1335379388911; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 11:43:08 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com
Received: by 10.147.152.14 with HTTP; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 11:43:08 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4F9839B8.7070203@tana.it>
References: <20120423094450.10355.95358.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392810193D@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <4F97CC0C.6010209@cisco.com> <CALaySJJmpyj-j=ybsLzwJdNHcYwgTOuhA+U4CezmRpx3TgLX+A@mail.gmail.com> <4F9839B8.7070203@tana.it>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 14:43:08 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: eRgl0BEWOgWpYQ0LH1Vxjaf_zlE
Message-ID: <CAC4RtVBuhvgvbbyxfWkY=2rCTCZS6zgYmVneDnifg=w4raMfZA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: marf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [marf] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-marf-as-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 18:43:10 -0000

> This is not the first time I see exchanges of clarifications on this
> topic among people whom I consider IETF experts. =A0So, I'm worried what
> will average readers of this document be able to conclude if they
> happen to wonder about the status of the recommendations made or
> referred to therein. =A0I doubt that citing [RFC2026] suffices.

This isn't a question of clarifications to people consuming the
document.  It's discussion among the people involved with *process*,
and it's about the process.  Once the document is published as an RFC,
consumers will see the RFC (and it will be labelled "Standards
Track"), and all this process-related discussion won't matter.

Don't worry about this point.

Barry, harried AD

From stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie  Tue Apr 24 17:48:31 2012
Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70A8311E80B6; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 17:48:31 -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=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xK0BfVv7I-Qr; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 17:48:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from scss.tcd.ie (hermes.scss.tcd.ie [IPv6:2001:770:10:200:889f:cdff:fe8d:ccd2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B99B11E809D; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 17:48:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4EBF1714DC; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 01:48:29 +0100 (IST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; h= content-transfer-encoding:content-type:in-reply-to:references :subject:mime-version:user-agent:from:date:message-id:received :received:x-virus-scanned; s=cs; t=1335314909; bh=XG41gXM4S8tEKS PmtmrmqCCo9Ynxq5Wp2j6s7cRJAqs=; b=R8F7ZCnYRriLXcxPPD6kaG4Q+5Ba+k 9R7vDNWDqW7onEq5Znt4V8Ze77Y+mq+KE8DZLuxPbKV8aJh4apGEMx32A/3eMgYC jznl+JzAZJk5jX4WIYB7vgv7DvIMl4H8tJmODWiVEp/HgsVh3FU8LpLMjOtSrvXV FDCfJH9tWwACyuDo4VG4onbFilWqx1L84iksY858UdVGzsyWA0j5KdV48so/HxBw sCK0o5fZoMUf9mr3MYVy/DcupRzkqg2ASAFuLT0AMth3Kq6l+31OgPcvRGbUGcAy 1u1Mkt6LJS8buOJP7pxhpYOuU4zIYuvAM8XdLwJlk1+UDmRq/wQCV4Nw==
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10027) with ESMTP id vl-4f7-33jK7; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 01:48:29 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [10.87.48.9] (unknown [86.42.27.157]) by smtp.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EBA2E1714DB; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 01:48:28 +0100 (IST)
Message-ID: <4F9749D2.1000305@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 01:48:18 +0100
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
References: <20120423113349.2910.29271.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039281019C1@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
In-Reply-To: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039281019C1@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 12:59:06 -0700
Cc: "draft-ietf-marf-as@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-marf-as@tools.ietf.org>, "marf-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <marf-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "marf@ietf.org" <marf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [marf] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-marf-as-14: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 00:48:31 -0000

Hiya,

As these are all comments you can continue to leave 'em
however you like:-)

On 04/25/2012 01:06 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Stephen Farrell [mailto:stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie]
>> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 4:34 AM
>> To: The IESG
>> Cc: marf-chairs@tools.ietf.org; draft-ietf-marf-as@tools.ietf.org
>> Subject: Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-marf-as-14: (with
>> COMMENT)
>>
>> Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-marf-as-14: No Objection
>>
>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>> introductory paragraph, however.)
>>
>> Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-
>> criteria.html
>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Just a bunch of nitty comments. Feel free to take 'em or leave 'em.
> 
> Leaving 'em, except:
> 
>> 5.1 (2) - I think you mean that "they think will" pass SPF/DKIM checks,
>> since they can't be sure
> 
> OK.
> 
>> 5.2 (1) - "the receiver" is a bit ambiguous in the 1st sentence, maybe
>> s/the receiver/the report receiver/? (Or if handling is expensive for
>> both, then maybe say that.)
> 
> OK (the former).
> 
>> 5.5 (1) - is "bulk senders" at the end here ambiguous? I read it as
>> referring to the sender of the message(s) that triggered the report.
> 
> Right, but I'm fumbling on wording to clarify.  Is "bulk email senders" enough (as different to "bulk report senders")?

Well, sometimes just using more words works, e.g. maybe "the sender(s)
of the messages that triggered the reports" (but I didn't look back
for context so that might be useless;-)

> 
>> 6 - what is a "smaller" AS or use-case? Do you mean fewer people will
>> do this or that its simpler?
> 
> As in this section (the statement) has less to say than the sections above that talk about the "abuse" feedback report type.
> 
>> 6 - point (3), is the "MUST be constructed" there right? If everything
>> needed to satisfy this MUST is later in point 3, then you could say
>> "MUST be done as stated below" - as is, this looks like there's
>> something else needed to satisfy the MUST but you don't say what.
> 
> The first MUST sets the overall goal.  Since it is not itself normative, it could change to "needs to", since the normative stuff later is what really lays it out.
> 
>> 8.3 - this is a little terse, maybe point back at those recommendations
>> or say a bit more?
> 
> Sure (the reference).
> 
>> 8.4 - might be better to say "larger volumes or higher frequency"
> 
> OK.
> 
>> 8.5 - I guess this means that report receivers ought not react to
>> missing reports as if something was wrong. Not sure if that's worth
>> noting explicitly or not.
> 
> How would you react to a missing report?

Complain to the waiter? :-)

Or throw away the next rx'd because its not last-seq+1 or
whatever). Sell the information as to who'd doing what based on
the nodes that think they're running this protocol?


S


> 
> -MSK

From bclaise@cisco.com  Wed Apr 25 03:04:01 2012
Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B33BA21F8762; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 03:04:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.274
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.274 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.275, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_24=0.6]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vA51d5yvPn03; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 03:04:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from av-tac-bru.cisco.com (weird-brew.cisco.com [144.254.15.118]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A15A21F875C; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 03:04:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned
Received: from strange-brew.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-bru.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q3PA3uYg022964; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 12:03:56 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.60.67.86] (ams-bclaise-8915.cisco.com [10.60.67.86]) by strange-brew.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q3PA3u3E000210; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 12:03:56 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <4F97CC0C.6010209@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 12:03:56 +0200
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
References: <20120423094450.10355.95358.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392810193D@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
In-Reply-To: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392810193D@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 12:59:06 -0700
Cc: me <bclaise@cisco.com>, "draft-ietf-marf-as@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-marf-as@tools.ietf.org>, "marf-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <marf-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "marf@ietf.org" <marf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [marf] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-marf-as-14: (with DISCUSS and	COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 10:04:01 -0000

Hi Murray,
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Benoit Claise [mailto:bclaise@cisco.com]
>> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 2:45 AM
>> To: The IESG
>> Cc: marf-chairs@tools.ietf.org; draft-ietf-marf-as@tools.ietf.org
>> Subject: Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-marf-as-14: (with
>> DISCUSS and COMMENT)
>>
>> Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-marf-as-14: Discuss
>>
>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>> introductory paragraph, however.)
>>
>> Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-
>> criteria.html
>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> DISCUSS:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> DISCUSS-DISCUSS
>>
>> Abstract
>>
>>     RFC 5965 defines an extensible, machine-readable format intended for
>>     mail operators to report feedback about received email to other
>>     parties.  This Applicability Statement describes common methods for
>>     utilizing this format for reporting both abuse and authentication
>>     failure events.  Mailbox Providers of any size, mail sending
>>     entities, and end users can use these methods as a basis to create
>>     procedures that best suit them.  Some related optional mechanisms are
>>     also discussed.
>>
>> Before reviewing this draft, I browsed through the 4 RFCs at
>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/marf/
>> Question: is this intentional that the abstract and the draft only
>> mention the "abuse" and "auth-failure" Feedback Type Name, and not the
>> others ones?
>> 	fraud 		[RFC5965]
>> 	not-spam	[RFC6430]
>> 	virus		[RFC5965]
>>
>> Not a single reference to fraud, not-spam, virus, and [RFC6430] I'm
>> surprised not to see the full ARF capacities mentioned in a document
>> titled "An Applicability Statement for the Abuse Reporting Format
>> (ARF)", and would like to understand.
> We've simply not seen enough use of these in the wild to be able to comment on their proper or recommended use in this AS.  The original document that became RFC5965 actually listed a large number of other report types that were at one time thought to be useful, but were removed prior to publication because nobody had used them.  "fraud" and "virus" did see rare use but remain edge cases, so they remained in the list registered by RFC5965.
>
> We can (and probably should) mention this in the Introduction.
Let me ask a very basic question to everybody, including the other IESG 
members: what is the goal of an Applicability Statement?
1. Explain how the technical specifications are used "in the wild", as 
you mentioned. So a deployment experience document
2. Or explain how the technical specifications should be used for the 
different use cases (generally specified in a requirement document)
When I read RFC 2026 section 3.2, I conclude for 2.

Even before re-reading RFC2026, my feeling was that an applicability 
statement could be the first document that someone new to a WG could 
read: explaining the different use cases, giving pointers to the 
technical specifications, and explaining how to apply/combine the 
specifications. Basically, a document that would help implementors to 
select which (part of the) spec. to implement depending on the use case, 
a document that would promote the technology. This is how we approached 
the Applicability Statement documents in the WGs I've been involved with.

Therefore, I'm in favor to mention how fraud, not-spam, virus should be 
used.

Let me discuss this during the IETF telechat tomorrow, see what the 
others are thinking, and get back to you.
>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> - I see a lot of sentences such as "... discussed in Section X of
>> [RFC6449]."
>> And the only sentence in the introduction related to that RFC is:
>> "Further introduction to this topic may be found in [RFC6449]."
>> Some sentences explaining what this informational RFC is about would be
>> very welcome.
> I propose this as the last paragraph to the Introduction:
>
> Further introduction to this topic may be found in<xref target="RFC6449"/>, which is effectively an Applicability Statement written outside of the IETF and thus never achieved IETF consensus.  Much of the content for that document was input to this one.
Thanks. Can you please also a few sentences on how the documents match 
and differ.
You know, I see rfc6449, published a few months back, and I see this 
document draft-ietf-marf-as-14, which will be published approx. 6 months
And I'm wondering, as someone not involved in this WG...
- Why do we have two almost similar documents?
- Why RFC 6449 could not be a MARF document?
- Which one(s) should I read?
- Are they conflicting? If yes, I guess that draft-ietf-marf-as-14 take 
precedence. If no, is draft-ietf-marf-as-14 is superset of RFC 6449, and 
RFC 6449 should not be read any longer.
- etc...

I'm sure you had very good answers to all these questions, and I'm 
looking for some written explanation for new comers in this space.
>
>
>> - Section 5.2
>> "RFC5321.MailFrom" Doesn't read right to me in: "If a Feedback Provider
>> applies SPF to arriving messages, a report SHOULD NOT be generated to
>> the RFC5321.MailFrom domain"
> It's a notation introduced in RFC5598, which is a normative reference here.
Thanks for your time and effort.

Regards, Benoit.
>
> -MSK
>
>


From bclaise@cisco.com  Wed Apr 25 05:34:34 2012
Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66E3021F86F3; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 05:34:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.569
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.569 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.030,  BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5RkecOzpboHi; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 05:34:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from av-tac-bru.cisco.com (weird-brew.cisco.com [144.254.15.118]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A33C21F86F0; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 05:34:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned
Received: from strange-brew.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-bru.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q3PCYSiV011297; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 14:34:28 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.60.67.86] (ams-bclaise-8915.cisco.com [10.60.67.86]) by strange-brew.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q3PCYR5F027120; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 14:34:28 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <4F97EF53.9070408@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 14:34:27 +0200
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
References: <20120423094450.10355.95358.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392810193D@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <4F97CC0C.6010209@cisco.com> <CALaySJJmpyj-j=ybsLzwJdNHcYwgTOuhA+U4CezmRpx3TgLX+A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJJmpyj-j=ybsLzwJdNHcYwgTOuhA+U4CezmRpx3TgLX+A@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 12:59:06 -0700
Cc: "draft-ietf-marf-as@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-marf-as@tools.ietf.org>, "marf-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <marf-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "marf@ietf.org" <marf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [marf] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-marf-as-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 12:34:34 -0000

Hi Barry,
>> Let me ask a very basic question to everybody, including the other IESG
>> members: what is the goal of an Applicability Statement?
>> 1. Explain how the technical specifications are used "in the wild", as you
>> mentioned. So a deployment experience document
>> 2. Or explain how the technical specifications should be used for the
>> different use cases (generally specified in a requirement document)
>>
>> When I read RFC 2026 section 3.2, I conclude for 2.
> Yes, 2.  But an AS doesn't necessarily (perhaps usually doesn't) cover
> every use case.  Consider the greylisting document that's also on this
> week's telechat: it's describing how to use SMTP for a specific use
> case, to do a specific thing.  Many AS documents will be of that
> nature, talking about certain use cases, but not every possible one.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-appsawg-greylisting/ is 
different, as its scope is well defined, starting with the title: "Email 
Greylisting: An Applicability Statement for SMTP"
On the other hand, "Creation and Use of Email Feedback Reports: An 
Applicability Statement for the Abuse Reporting Format (ARF)" points to 
a generic ARF application statement... which is not.

Regards, Benoit.
>
>> Therefore, I'm in favor to mention how fraud, not-spam, virus should be
>> used.
> The working group chose to center the marf-as document on the cases
> that are actually in use today.  I think that's a fine choice.  It
> might be reasonable to have one or more AS documents about the
> less-common use cases, and that/those could be written later.  This
> isn't that document.
>
> Barry
>
>


From msk@cloudmark.com  Wed Apr 25 13:17:38 2012
Return-Path: <msk@cloudmark.com>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA45D21F88F5 for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 13:17:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.555
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.555 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.044, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XmG6Ypm6bxeJ for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 13:17:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.cloudmark.com (cmgw1.cloudmark.com [208.83.136.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7ED7B21F88F7 for <marf@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 13:17:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com ([72.5.239.26]) by mail.cloudmark.com with bizsmtp id 2LHF1j0010as01C01LHF0e; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 13:17:24 -0700
X-CMAE-Match: 0
X-CMAE-Score: 0.00
X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=K4ag7lqI c=1 sm=1 a=QMZKka45TBd+hNGtXG2bIg==:17 a=LvckAehuu68A:10 a=Qrv36LpUKT8A:10 a=zutiEJmiVI4A:10 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=AEDFM0qtAAAA:8 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=BKtCKEuFW1E-ie4T75AA:9 a=DcKsNv578sS9B2pPO8oA:7 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=jqlaW5bC1iAA:10 a=ObgSaLnxuQYGMWPp:21 a=g1xTM8VxK5Erw1K9:21 a=QMZKka45TBd+hNGtXG2bIg==:117
Received: from EXCH-MBX901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::addf:849a:f71c:4a82]) by exch-htcas902.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::54de:dc60:5f3e:334%10]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 13:16:53 -0700
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Adrian Farrel's No Objection on draft-ietf-marf-as-15: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHNIwXRTxBGS3SrIUOXRS0NLNxzHpar+fwA
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 20:16:52 +0000
Message-ID: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392810297C@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <20120425170640.27848.77721.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20120425170640.27848.77721.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [172.20.2.121]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cloudmark.com; s=default; t=1335385044; bh=gZmk7tJnOMM5goZUPsXL8ur7y9BktTEZtifhyfzNz9s=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=hoTiyURvi46CzI9w0O9wmF1kdaFmG5DPunbAk/bOkUUzggKRXBeIgRNdQnsfdAOIt 9VwG2IOnVmpeAPEFSzG0BF2JPXwKAIh9fqJ/DktuNr1gHn66p427q9dweckPEq/uxZ TME9dseLX373xJNOxKAu07A4/0X6ZWIDtqfR4uTk=
Cc: "draft-ietf-marf-as@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-marf-as@tools.ietf.org>, "marf-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <marf-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, "marf@ietf.org" <marf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [marf] Adrian Farrel's No Objection on draft-ietf-marf-as-15: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 20:17:38 -0000
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==

From adrian@olddog.co.uk  Wed Apr 25 13:32:06 2012
Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E21E11E8083; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 13:32:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.521
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.521 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.078,  BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6rx34DNRdD1C; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 13:32:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (asmtp2.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.249]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1CF421E800F; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 13:32:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q3PKVphF009626;  Wed, 25 Apr 2012 21:31:51 +0100
Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q3PKVnIk009620 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 25 Apr 2012 21:31:50 +0100
From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: "'Murray S. Kucherawy'" <msk@cloudmark.com>, "'The IESG'" <iesg@ietf.org>
References: <20120425170640.27848.77721.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392810297C@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
In-Reply-To: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392810297C@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 21:31:48 +0100
Message-ID: <073501cd2322$71120900$53361b00$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQL0KC9i4/IYaruXuTwYGVqhSUKftQGa1sZUlFEbsEA=
Content-Language: en-gb
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 13:32:39 -0700
Cc: draft-ietf-marf-as@tools.ietf.org, marf-chairs@tools.ietf.org, marf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [marf] Adrian Farrel's No Objection on draft-ietf-marf-as-15: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 20:32:06 -0000

Hi Murray,

Thanks for this...

> > Forgive me, but doesn't section 8.2 say that forged abuse reports
> > constitue a real problem and the two mechanisms available to protect
> > against them may result in genuine abuse reports being discarded?
>=20
> Yes to the first point.  The second point is true of all email, not =
just abuse reports;
> if the signer's infrastructure is causing signatures to break, there's =
no reason to
> trust the reports even though they bear some kind of signature.  The =
same goes
> for, say, a message from your bank that's signed but the signature =
fails to
> validate.
>=20
> > Is the message here "chosse which you think might be the least worse
> > problem" or is it "you should use DKIM and SPF, but be aware that =
you
> > may lose some genuine reports"?
>=20
> It's "You should use DKIM and/or SPF, but make sure they're working =
properly if
> you want to reap the benefits."
>=20
> > I would have liked some clarification as to which message is being
> > sent.
>=20
> That section is only talking about reports.  Which part is unclear?

Simply (to my reading - which you may ignore if you feel I am not =
reading clearly) that the thought you captured above is not clear.

I read a rather despairing statement that since DKIM and SPF might not =
be working it is a toss-up whether you have reports being discarded =
because the signature fails or reports being spoofed.

If this is "state of the art" for email systems then maybe there is =
nothing else to say.

It struck me, however, that reports are going to be consumed by =
automatic systems. If I get an email where the signature fails, I can =
perform all sorts of human verification of the email and make a =
judgement call on the validity of the email. A software system =
processing reports is less flexible and so more exposed.

Perhaps the clarity that is needed is the strong hint that "Therefore =
the use of DKIM and/or SPF is RECOMMENDED and it is important to ensure =
that the security infrastructure is working properly."

Cheers,
Adrian








From msk@cloudmark.com  Wed Apr 25 13:42:42 2012
Return-Path: <msk@cloudmark.com>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4321A21F889F for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 13:42:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.556
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.556 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.043, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bdkTl3b5xK1Q for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 13:42:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.cloudmark.com (cmgw1.cloudmark.com [208.83.136.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96EA421F8898 for <marf@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 13:42:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com ([72.5.239.25]) by mail.cloudmark.com with bizsmtp id 2LiX1j0010ZaKgw01LiX3m; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 13:42:40 -0700
X-CMAE-Match: 0
X-CMAE-Score: 0.00
X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=VPNfbqzX c=1 sm=1 a=LdFkGDrDWH2mcjCZERnC4w==:17 a=LvckAehuu68A:10 a=Qrv36LpUKT8A:10 a=zutiEJmiVI4A:10 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=AEDFM0qtAAAA:8 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=S7-SrpCrxlHfzrctZQUA:9 a=3p4wycy5GqjIVkBUmPoA:7 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=jqlaW5bC1iAA:10 a=lZB815dzVvQA:10 a=LdFkGDrDWH2mcjCZERnC4w==:117
Received: from EXCH-MBX901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::addf:849a:f71c:4a82]) by exch-htcas901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::2524:76b6:a865:539c%10]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 13:42:31 -0700
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: "adrian@olddog.co.uk" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, 'The IESG' <iesg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Adrian Farrel's No Objection on draft-ietf-marf-as-15: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHNIwXRTxBGS3SrIUOXRS0NLNxzHpar+fwAgAB6MQD//4sbAA==
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 20:42:31 +0000
Message-ID: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E003928102A1B@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <20120425170640.27848.77721.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392810297C@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <073501cd2322$71120900$53361b00$@olddog.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <073501cd2322$71120900$53361b00$@olddog.co.uk>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [172.20.2.121]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cloudmark.com; s=default; t=1335386560; bh=QIHegDMdTdnOgmq2LGLEsCaiP9moxX6iFtjWVYivUHw=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=Gi/gVe5j87HvsFS32ckubkmlsi9gfT44dJqHeIdhhDwH8EqoxAhXbiz9nyVakI0+u u8sQcaGmKH//nsIQT6Qrd4v//LLQu2eisqXbmIXk+I5lLkOZCz6wwzWWTRPI+oIU6u z87/Z7vv6yskyCFLoWChQ4in0ZXLCnX3kmjHDspA=
Cc: "draft-ietf-marf-as@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-marf-as@tools.ietf.org>, "marf-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <marf-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, "marf@ietf.org" <marf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [marf] Adrian Farrel's No Objection on draft-ietf-marf-as-15: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 20:42:42 -0000
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From adrian@olddog.co.uk  Wed Apr 25 13:54:26 2012
Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 002DA11E8074; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 13:54:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.523
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.523 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.076,  BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dl3dYt+-CPzp; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 13:54:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (asmtp1.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.248]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33CB711E8072; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 13:54:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q3PKsJvk005614;  Wed, 25 Apr 2012 21:54:19 +0100
Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q3PKsI70005601 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 25 Apr 2012 21:54:19 +0100
From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: "'Murray S. Kucherawy'" <msk@cloudmark.com>, "'The IESG'" <iesg@ietf.org>
References: <20120425170640.27848.77721.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>	<9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392810297C@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>	<073501cd2322$71120900$53361b00$@olddog.co.uk> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E003928102A1B@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
In-Reply-To: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E003928102A1B@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 21:54:17 +0100
Message-ID: <074901cd2325$94e88180$beb98480$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQL0KC9i4/IYaruXuTwYGVqhSUKftQGa1sZUAdVffz4BdFaQS5Q21W+Q
Content-Language: en-gb
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 13:54:56 -0700
Cc: draft-ietf-marf-as@tools.ietf.org, marf-chairs@tools.ietf.org, marf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [marf] Adrian Farrel's No Objection on draft-ietf-marf-as-15: (with	COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 20:54:26 -0000

wfm
thanks for listening
A

> -----Original Message-----
> From: iesg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:iesg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf =
Of
> Murray S. Kucherawy
> Sent: 25 April 2012 21:43
> To: adrian@olddog.co.uk; 'The IESG'
> Cc: draft-ietf-marf-as@tools.ietf.org; marf-chairs@tools.ietf.org; =
marf@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Adrian Farrel's No Objection on draft-ietf-marf-as-15: =
(with
> COMMENT)
>=20
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk]
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 1:32 PM
> > To: Murray S. Kucherawy; 'The IESG'
> > Cc: marf-chairs@tools.ietf.org; draft-ietf-marf-as@tools.ietf.org;
> > marf@ietf.org
> > Subject: RE: Adrian Farrel's No Objection on draft-ietf-marf-as-15:
> > (with COMMENT)
> >
> > Simply (to my reading - which you may ignore if you feel I am not
> > reading clearly) that the thought you captured above is not clear.
> >
> > I read a rather despairing statement that since DKIM and SPF might =
not
> > be working it is a toss-up whether you have reports being discarded
> > because the signature fails or reports being spoofed.
> >
> > If this is "state of the art" for email systems then maybe there is
> > nothing else to say.
> >
> > It struck me, however, that reports are going to be consumed by
> > automatic systems. If I get an email where the signature fails, I =
can
> > perform all sorts of human verification of the email and make a
> > judgement call on the validity of the email. A software system
> > processing reports is less flexible and so more exposed.
> >
> > Perhaps the clarity that is needed is the strong hint that =
"Therefore
> > the use of DKIM and/or SPF is RECOMMENDED and it is important to =
ensure
> > that the security infrastructure is working properly."
>=20
> [Cc'd to the marf list so that they can check my math here]
>=20
> I'm one of those people that's not a fan of normative language in =
Security
> Considerations, so how's this?:
>=20
>    Perhaps the simplest means of mitigating this threat is to assert
>    that these reports should themselves be signed with something like
>    DKIM and/or authorized by something like SPF.  Note, however, that =
if
>    there is a problem with the email infrastructure at either end, =
DKIM
>    and/or SPF may result in reports that aren't trusted or even =
accepted
>    by their intended recipients, so it is important to make sure those
>    components are properly configured.  Use of both technologies in
>    tandem can resolve this concern to agree since they generally have
>    disjoint failure modes.
>=20
> -MSK


From barryleiba@gmail.com  Wed Apr 25 13:56:04 2012
Return-Path: <barryleiba@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 118AC21F88FC; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 13:56:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.975
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.975 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.002, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4nUUyU-Jcylh; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 13:56:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com (mail-ob0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C26D721F85B5; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 13:55:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by obbwd20 with SMTP id wd20so619775obb.31 for <multiple recipients>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 13:55:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=vfhoOEPxjfTwdX9/dxMFsA7ZYCBssXv3WcGfwU3ELLY=; b=gX4kI8/+nL5saWqAYmyu/DIEhBPRBA3GCNu7CcW2dzXlrNPup8bMkBMPe7gz4GFKB/ KLWae8TrvL7d6H3FK1BFNIlmL+PTtIjU3aPWCSn7h366EujCyhwbOl7oa1hE8iJNCul7 hwPWCZUNLqHweSvZ/Aqm7Zs0rCLycSm3Bp2TPDBQ1aF2Z84IHWaYiTyRtXOpfe1jloZy CmQ2fGiPem3oJ3uV/xKey6MHDELiZbWMiArTJLeIpdvuR8ecd6Cs/Vxn+e6AWfaiBEub QN08tdK6UO06zR0jyEv4JZh7DgwcpHxI3P3RbBDC6OybIRK54nRAZ9zII+Lpay3zcX0m m4cA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.182.11.40 with SMTP id n8mr5170042obb.32.1335387359398; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 13:55:59 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com
Received: by 10.60.10.68 with HTTP; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 13:55:59 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <074901cd2325$94e88180$beb98480$@olddog.co.uk>
References: <20120425170640.27848.77721.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392810297C@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <073501cd2322$71120900$53361b00$@olddog.co.uk> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E003928102A1B@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <074901cd2325$94e88180$beb98480$@olddog.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 16:55:59 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: ZIqdAAzFLdO-XbZ9rPXWGqwmvuc
Message-ID: <CALaySJK-OwPqjv+mG9YqOLCv_JxbdFLc+RSvwwNA-oHtKX4-Eg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: draft-ietf-marf-as@tools.ietf.org, marf@ietf.org, marf-chairs@tools.ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [marf] Adrian Farrel's No Objection on draft-ietf-marf-as-15: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 20:56:04 -0000

>> =A0 =A0components are properly configured. =A0Use of both technologies i=
n
>> =A0 =A0tandem can resolve this concern to agree since they generally hav=
e
>> =A0 =A0disjoint failure modes.

"to a degree".

Took me a minute to figure that out.

b

From msk@cloudmark.com  Wed Apr 25 14:07:32 2012
Return-Path: <msk@cloudmark.com>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 345D311E808E for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 14:07:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.557
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.557 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.042, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ndfyHCrxN62T for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 14:07:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.cloudmark.com (cmgw1.cloudmark.com [208.83.136.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A27711E8099 for <marf@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 14:07:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com ([72.5.239.25]) by mail.cloudmark.com with bizsmtp id 2M7F1j0010ZaKgw01M7FAN; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 14:07:27 -0700
X-CMAE-Match: 0
X-CMAE-Score: 0.00
X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=VPNfbqzX c=1 sm=1 a=LdFkGDrDWH2mcjCZERnC4w==:17 a=LvckAehuu68A:10 a=Qrv36LpUKT8A:10 a=zutiEJmiVI4A:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=pGLkceISAAAA:8 a=AEDFM0qtAAAA:8 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=6MQln1yZOsmoGqQvg2QA:9 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=MSl-tDqOz04A:10 a=jqlaW5bC1iAA:10 a=lZB815dzVvQA:10 a=D76-OAlWXSBOY3Zp:21 a=tmwiv2cszwAJ6yXz:21 a=LdFkGDrDWH2mcjCZERnC4w==:117
Received: from EXCH-MBX901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::addf:849a:f71c:4a82]) by exch-htcas901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::2524:76b6:a865:539c%10]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 14:07:15 -0700
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, "adrian@olddog.co.uk" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
Thread-Topic: Adrian Farrel's No Objection on draft-ietf-marf-as-15: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHNIyXedoxkS+2RAEi2YWKUH7oZRZasCG2g
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 21:07:14 +0000
Message-ID: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E003928102ADF@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <20120425170640.27848.77721.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392810297C@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <073501cd2322$71120900$53361b00$@olddog.co.uk> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E003928102A1B@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <074901cd2325$94e88180$beb98480$@olddog.co.uk> <CALaySJK-OwPqjv+mG9YqOLCv_JxbdFLc+RSvwwNA-oHtKX4-Eg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJK-OwPqjv+mG9YqOLCv_JxbdFLc+RSvwwNA-oHtKX4-Eg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [172.20.2.121]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cloudmark.com; s=default; t=1335388047; bh=Ij2Wgc6kPYE0bB0LK1ZNdXQ8Vn0p6TE4c704o9Vteus=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=U79o2wtmt3Jv4fWBxFsu80Yg0kWWbK6MNFjm4EKrQgYbFFxmKtikuGWNyZsWKeGdu R3sTrefhGmB9nKO+W/qVt4nVrZM6hf1gn/YGomcJeJ1aFS3gbVztTfAo0FWWuBrOoA Ezdypz1Npxl2QM8DNrBgaoj38BHtzri62eu/s3pM=
Cc: "draft-ietf-marf-as@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-marf-as@tools.ietf.org>, "marf-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <marf-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "marf@ietf.org" <marf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [marf] Adrian Farrel's No Objection on draft-ietf-marf-as-15: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 21:07:32 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: barryleiba@gmail.com [mailto:barryleiba@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Bar=
ry Leiba
> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 1:56 PM
> To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
> Cc: Murray S. Kucherawy; The IESG; draft-ietf-marf-as@tools.ietf.org;
> marf-chairs@tools.ietf.org; marf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Adrian Farrel's No Objection on draft-ietf-marf-as-15:
> (with COMMENT)
>=20
> >> =A0 =A0components are properly configured. =A0Use of both technologies=
 in
> >> =A0 =A0tandem can resolve this concern to agree since they generally
> have
> >> =A0 =A0disjoint failure modes.
>=20
> "to a degree".
>=20
> Took me a minute to figure that out.

Damn, you cracked my crypto.

-MSK

From bclaise@cisco.com  Wed Apr 25 16:08:13 2012
Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36CC721F8648; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 16:08:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.383
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.383 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.215,  BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id T8GC18e0lBYy; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 16:08:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from av-tac-bru.cisco.com (weird-brew.cisco.com [144.254.15.118]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 553A921F8526; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 16:08:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned
Received: from strange-brew.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-bru.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q3PN7vTN014607; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 01:07:57 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.60.67.87] (ams-bclaise-8916.cisco.com [10.60.67.87]) by strange-brew.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q3PN7sis025546; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 01:07:56 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <4F9883CA.9050502@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 01:07:54 +0200
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
References: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E003928101C5B@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <4F97BEAE.9000707@tana.it>
In-Reply-To: <4F97BEAE.9000707@tana.it>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------010802010702020900040101"
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 16:11:45 -0700
Cc: marf@ietf.org, IESG IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [marf] Proposed changes to draft-ietf-marf-as
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 23:08:13 -0000

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------010802010702020900040101
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi Alessandro,

> On Wed 25/Apr/2012 10:18:50 +0200 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>>
>> The diff: http://www.blackops.org/~msk/marf-as.html
>    Further introduction to this topic may be found in [RFC6449],
>    which	is effectively an Applicability Statement written outside of
>    the IETF and thus never achieved IETF consensus. Much of the
>    content for that document was input to this one.
>
> That's a useful clarification, but possibly not as accurate as it
> could.  If I knew IETF standardization enough, I'd propose text to say
> what we mean to do, something along the lines of (AIUI):
>
>    Further advice on this topic can be found in [RFC6449], which is
>    effectively an Applicability Statement written outside of the
>    IETF.  Rather than modify that document and then turn it into an
>    IETF Standard, the IETF republished it as an Informational document
>    and then publishes this document, which confers IETF Standard
>    status to selected parts of the former one, while updating it as
>    appropriate.

I prefer your proposal very much, as it addresses my questions (asked 
part of my review):

    Can you please also a few sentences on how the documents match and
    differ.
    You know, I see rfc6449, published a few months back, and I see this
    document draft-ietf-marf-as-14, which will be published approx. 6
    months
    And I'm wondering, as someone not involved in this WG...
    - Why do we have two almost similar documents?
    - Why RFC 6449 could not be a MARF document?
    - Which one(s) should I read?
    - Are they conflicting? If yes, I guess that draft-ietf-marf-as-14
    take precedence. If no, is draft-ietf-marf-as-14 is superset of RFC
    6449, and RFC 6449 should not be read any longer.
    - etc...

Regards, Benoit.
>
>


--------------010802010702020900040101
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
      http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
    Hi Alessandro,<br>
    <br>
    <blockquote cite="mid:4F97BEAE.9000707@tana.it" type="cite">
      <pre wrap="">On Wed 25/Apr/2012 10:18:50 +0200 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
</pre>
      <blockquote type="cite">
        <pre wrap=""> 
The diff: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.blackops.org/~msk/marf-as.html">http://www.blackops.org/~msk/marf-as.html</a>
</pre>
      </blockquote>
      <pre wrap="">
  Further introduction to this topic may be found in [RFC6449],
  which	is effectively an Applicability Statement written outside of
  the IETF and thus never achieved IETF consensus. Much of the
  content for that document was input to this one.

That's a useful clarification, but possibly not as accurate as it
could.  If I knew IETF standardization enough, I'd propose text to say
what we mean to do, something along the lines of (AIUI):

  Further advice on this topic can be found in [RFC6449], which is
  effectively an Applicability Statement written outside of the
  IETF.  Rather than modify that document and then turn it into an
  IETF Standard, the IETF republished it as an Informational document
  and then publishes this document, which confers IETF Standard
  status to selected parts of the former one, while updating it as
  appropriate.</pre>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    I prefer your proposal very much, as it addresses my questions
    (asked part of my review):<br>
    <blockquote>Can you please also a few sentences on how the documents
      match and differ. <br>
      You know, I see rfc6449, published a few months back, and I see
      this document draft-ietf-marf-as-14, which will be published
      approx. 6 months <br>
      And I'm wondering, as someone not involved in this WG... <br>
      - Why do we have two almost similar documents? <br>
      - Why RFC 6449 could not be a MARF document? <br>
      - Which one(s) should I read? <br>
      - Are they conflicting? If yes, I guess that draft-ietf-marf-as-14
      take precedence. If no, is draft-ietf-marf-as-14 is superset of
      RFC 6449, and RFC 6449 should not be read any longer. <br>
      - etc... <br>
      <br>
    </blockquote>
    <blockquote>
    </blockquote>
    Regards, Benoit.<br>
    <blockquote cite="mid:4F97BEAE.9000707@tana.it" type="cite">
      <pre wrap="">


</pre>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
  </body>
</html>

--------------010802010702020900040101--

From bclaise@cisco.com  Wed Apr 25 16:09:39 2012
Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCE1621F8648; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 16:09:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.437
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.437 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.161,  BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lemZPSHsj40i; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 16:09:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from av-tac-bru.cisco.com (weird-brew.cisco.com [144.254.15.118]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E08921F8646; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 16:09:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned
Received: from strange-brew.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-bru.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q3PN9Y3q014836; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 01:09:35 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.60.67.87] (ams-bclaise-8916.cisco.com [10.60.67.87]) by strange-brew.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q3PN9YQ8026686; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 01:09:34 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <4F98842E.5030505@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 01:09:34 +0200
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
References: <20120423094450.10355.95358.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392810193D@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <4F97CC0C.6010209@cisco.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039281022B8@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
In-Reply-To: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039281022B8@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------050707050206030501000806"
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 16:11:45 -0700
Cc: "draft-ietf-marf-as@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-marf-as@tools.ietf.org>, "marf-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <marf-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "marf@ietf.org" <marf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [marf] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-marf-as-14: (with DISCUSS and	COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 23:09:39 -0000

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------050707050206030501000806
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi,

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Benoit Claise [mailto:bclaise@cisco.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 3:04 AM
>> To: Murray S. Kucherawy
>> Cc: The IESG; marf-chairs@tools.ietf.org; draft-ietf-marf-
>> as@tools.ietf.org; marf@ietf.org; me
>> Subject: Re: Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-marf-as-14: (with
>> DISCUSS and COMMENT)
>>
>> Therefore, I'm in favor to mention how fraud, not-spam, virus should be
>> used.
> We would have if we had that information, but we don't.  As I mentioned in the Introduction for -15, they are either too new (not-spam) or see too little use for us to comment on them in this document in a useful way.
>
> I don't know what we could do beyond saying that explicitly, which we've done, apart from delaying this document until we have that experience, which could theoretically be never.
>
> If we do want it to advance, then I'm happy to hear suggestions about what text we could add that satisfies your concern.  Is it really just the title?
Ok, you convinced me.
Let me propose something, based on your new draft version

OLD

    At the time of publication of this document, five feedback types are
    registered.  This document only discusses two of them ("abuse" and
    "auth-failure") as they are seeing sufficient use in practice that
    applicability statements can be made about them.  The others are
    either too new or too seldomly used to be included here.

NEW


    At the time of publication of this document, five feedback types are
    registered.  This document only discusses two of them ("abuse" and
    "auth-failure") as they are seeing sufficient use in practice that
    applicability statements can be made about them.  The others, i.e. "fraud"
    RFC5965], "not-spam"	[RFC6430], and "virus"[RFC5965] are
    either too new or too seldomly used to be included here.


These simple pointers would help addressing my previous point:

    "Even before re-reading RFC2026, my feeling was that an
    applicability statement could be the first document that someone new
    to a WG could read: explaining the different use cases, giving
    pointers to the technical specifications, and explaining how to
    apply/combine the specifications. Basically, a document that would
    help implementors to select which (part of the) spec. to implement
    depending on the use case, a document that would promote the
    technology. This is how we approached the Applicability Statement
    documents in the WGs I've been involved with. "

Thanks for work on this draft.

Regards, Benoit.
>
>> Let me discuss this during the IETF telechat tomorrow, see what the
>> others are thinking, and get back to you.
> OK.
>
> -MSK
>
>
>


--------------050707050206030501000806
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
    Hi,<br>
    <br>
    <blockquote
cite="mid:9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039281022B8@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com"
      type="cite">
      <blockquote type="cite">
        <pre wrap="">-----Original Message-----
From: Benoit Claise [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:bclaise@cisco.com">mailto:bclaise@cisco.com</a>]
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 3:04 AM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy
Cc: The IESG; <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:marf-chairs@tools.ietf.org">marf-chairs@tools.ietf.org</a>; draft-ietf-marf-
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:as@tools.ietf.org">as@tools.ietf.org</a>; <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:marf@ietf.org">marf@ietf.org</a>; me
Subject: Re: Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-marf-as-14: (with
DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Therefore, I'm in favor to mention how fraud, not-spam, virus should be
used.
</pre>
      </blockquote>
      <pre wrap="">
We would have if we had that information, but we don't.  As I mentioned in the Introduction for -15, they are either too new (not-spam) or see too little use for us to comment on them in this document in a useful way.

I don't know what we could do beyond saying that explicitly, which we've done, apart from delaying this document until we have that experience, which could theoretically be never.

If we do want it to advance, then I'm happy to hear suggestions about what text we could add that satisfies your concern.  Is it really just the title?</pre>
    </blockquote>
    Ok, you convinced me. <br>
    Let me propose something, based on your new draft version<br>
    <br>
    OLD<br>
    <pre>   At the time of publication of this document, five feedback types are
   registered.  This document only discusses two of them ("abuse" and
   "auth-failure") as they are seeing sufficient use in practice that
   applicability statements can be made about them.  The others are
   either too new or too seldomly used to be included here.

NEW


   At the time of publication of this document, five feedback types are
   registered.  This document only discusses two of them ("abuse" and
   "auth-failure") as they are seeing sufficient use in practice that
   applicability statements can be made about them.  The others, i.e. "fraud" 
   RFC5965], "not-spam"	[RFC6430], and "virus"[RFC5965] are
   either too new or too seldomly used to be included here.

</pre>
    These simple pointers would help addressing my previous point:<br>
    <blockquote>"Even before re-reading RFC2026, my feeling was that an
      applicability statement could be the first document that someone
      new to a WG could read: explaining the different use cases, giving
      pointers to the technical specifications, and explaining how to
      apply/combine the specifications. Basically, a document that would
      help implementors to select which (part of the) spec. to implement
      depending on the use case, a document that would promote the
      technology. This is how we approached the Applicability Statement
      documents in the WGs I've been involved with.
      "<br>
      <br>
    </blockquote>
    Thanks for work on this draft.<br>
    <br>
    Regards, Benoit.<br>
    <blockquote
cite="mid:9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039281022B8@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com"
      type="cite">
      <pre wrap="">

</pre>
      <blockquote type="cite">
        <pre wrap="">Let me discuss this during the IETF telechat tomorrow, see what the
others are thinking, and get back to you.
</pre>
      </blockquote>
      <pre wrap="">
OK.

-MSK



</pre>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
  </body>
</html>

--------------050707050206030501000806--

From msk@cloudmark.com  Wed Apr 25 16:11:51 2012
Return-Path: <msk@cloudmark.com>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE02B21F87BD for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 16:11:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.557
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.557 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.041, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id K2IH1l4SEf7q for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 16:11:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.cloudmark.com (cmgw1.cloudmark.com [208.83.136.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C204F21F87B9 for <marf@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 16:11:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com ([72.5.239.25]) by mail.cloudmark.com with bizsmtp id 2PBs1j0010ZaKgw01PBsuT; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 16:12:01 -0700
X-CMAE-Match: 0
X-CMAE-Score: 0.00
X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=K4ag7lqI c=1 sm=1 a=LdFkGDrDWH2mcjCZERnC4w==:17 a=LvckAehuu68A:10 a=vGmJt43tM7QA:10 a=zutiEJmiVI4A:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=AUd_NHdVAAAA:8 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=MqMvgDvoA-S53iL-l8QA:9 a=QUfD7zBks9MyX2d_hMYA:7 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=JfD0Fch1gWkA:10 a=lZB815dzVvQA:10 a=yMhMjlubAAAA:8 a=SSmOFEACAAAA:8 a=sDVwohhq3m5QrzKcXHYA:9 a=O0jHb72UAufWNJtRBM8A:7 a=gKO2Hq4RSVkA:10 a=UiCQ7L4-1S4A:10 a=hTZeC7Yk6K0A:10 a=LdFkGDrDWH2mcjCZERnC4w==:117
Received: from EXCH-MBX901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::addf:849a:f71c:4a82]) by exch-htcas901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::2524:76b6:a865:539c%10]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 16:11:30 -0700
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-marf-as-14: (with DISCUSS and	COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHNITXMIbyZo9yVYUqgbSkbCNchdJaqoG6QgAEn8gD//9F14IABCgwA//+LI8A=
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 23:11:30 +0000
Message-ID: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E003928102D41@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <20120423094450.10355.95358.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392810193D@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <4F97CC0C.6010209@cisco.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039281022B8@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <4F98842E.5030505@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F98842E.5030505@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [172.20.2.121]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E003928102D41exchmbx901corpclo_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cloudmark.com; s=default; t=1335395521; bh=Kw0g0tOF/72hbVUdoDFVyxXmzi3ASHEQoT1AdkL3Jmc=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=HnyOk13cnA2E8C/83i1YaK7cV5pV5YABHqwGgnNCTpm1SaOiQ4DU/SRxKngDyWgZp mj75r5ovHV45v/ZYl+NoXxv9ZeMxyIMAyLBJEsI1JgaK3nEgr87GmzgGlfMdv8OiHx YyFxETJoOjqEasfwSLHgyW8xDoA3sNKDMyVb6g2Y=
Cc: "draft-ietf-marf-as@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-marf-as@tools.ietf.org>, "marf-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <marf-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "marf@ietf.org" <marf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [marf] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-marf-as-14: (with DISCUSS and	COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 23:11:52 -0000

--_000_9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E003928102D41exchmbx901corpclo_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
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--_000_9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E003928102D41exchmbx901corpclo_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
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--_000_9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E003928102D41exchmbx901corpclo_--

From internet-drafts@ietf.org  Wed Apr 25 16:31:04 2012
Return-Path: <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4B6C21E8084; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 16:31:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.518
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.518 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.081, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JTJsm7jGOLyp; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 16:31:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3024A21E8082; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 16:31:04 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: internet-drafts@ietf.org
To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.01p1
Message-ID: <20120425233104.27174.69983.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 16:31:04 -0700
Cc: marf@ietf.org
Subject: [marf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-marf-as-16.txt
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 23:31:04 -0000

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director=
ies. This draft is a work item of the Messaging Abuse Reporting Format Work=
ing Group of the IETF.

	Title           : Creation and Use of Email Feedback Reports: An Applicabi=
lity Statement for the Abuse Reporting Format (ARF)
	Author(s)       : J.D. Falk
                          M. Kucherawy
	Filename        : draft-ietf-marf-as-16.txt
	Pages           : 15
	Date            : 2012-04-25

   RFC 5965 defines an extensible, machine-readable format intended for
   mail operators to report feedback about received email to other
   parties.  This Applicability Statement describes common methods for
   utilizing this format for reporting both abuse and authentication
   failure events.  Mailbox Providers of any size, mail sending
   entities, and end users can use these methods as a basis to create
   procedures that best suit them.  Some related optional mechanisms are
   also discussed.


A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-marf-as-16.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-marf-as-16.txt

The IETF datatracker page for this Internet-Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-marf-as/


From msk@cloudmark.com  Wed Apr 25 16:31:52 2012
Return-Path: <msk@cloudmark.com>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83B7321E8088 for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 16:31:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.558
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.558 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.041, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vphuHzUL0v98 for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 16:31:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.cloudmark.com (cmgw1.cloudmark.com [208.83.136.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6D3D21E8082 for <marf@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 16:31:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com ([72.5.239.26]) by mail.cloudmark.com with bizsmtp id 2PYC1j0030as01C01PYC0g; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 16:32:12 -0700
X-CMAE-Match: 0
X-CMAE-Score: 0.00
X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=K4ag7lqI c=1 sm=1 a=QMZKka45TBd+hNGtXG2bIg==:17 a=LvckAehuu68A:10 a=eblicNpXXlMA:10 a=zutiEJmiVI4A:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=x5KKKBjfZDbtOiCyVBwA:9 a=6_R_S0Fs8kUkW0eWQooA:7 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=lZB815dzVvQA:10 a=QMZKka45TBd+hNGtXG2bIg==:117
Received: from EXCH-MBX901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::addf:849a:f71c:4a82]) by exch-htcas902.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::54de:dc60:5f3e:334%10]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 16:31:50 -0700
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: "marf@ietf.org" <marf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: I-D Action: draft-ietf-marf-as-16.txt
Thread-Index: AQHNIzuBhtKFZj8f3EuXCwPFWaCil5asMJtA
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 23:31:50 +0000
Message-ID: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E003928102DF1@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <20120425233104.27174.69983.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20120425233104.27174.69983.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [172.20.2.121]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cloudmark.com; s=default; t=1335396733; bh=zJZ/vmK1v2TGnDAsHgcORDqubx8pshb4DC+/3yOtDOs=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=UsD4/nqMBtxWRIXD9yU6v4HzsQ5Etxu2u5E2bT88+jXAU1XyXPPEtoozb1OK5DN4x XY5s0droRg86ftHKpUZ02aTlOvsMaLMbIKqcV/Z6NR6cw1jpVC5LDDtsG3Es4lo9sB bAD7QtyjyAmW3ZTqTvCJbqIS57tqc0FDE2IEPkJM=
Subject: Re: [marf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-marf-as-16.txt
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 23:31:52 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org=
] On Behalf Of internet-drafts@ietf.org
> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 4:31 PM
> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
> Cc: marf@ietf.org
> Subject: I-D Action: draft-ietf-marf-as-16.txt
>=20
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories. This draft is a work item of the Messaging Abuse Reporting
> Format Working Group of the IETF.
>=20
> 	Title           : Creation and Use of Email Feedback Reports: An
> Applicability Statement for the Abuse Reporting Format (ARF)
> 	Author(s)       : J.D. Falk
>                           M. Kucherawy
> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-marf-as-16.txt
> 	Pages           : 15
> 	Date            : 2012-04-25
>=20
>    RFC 5965 defines an extensible, machine-readable format intended for
>    mail operators to report feedback about received email to other
>    parties.  This Applicability Statement describes common methods for
>    utilizing this format for reporting both abuse and authentication
>    failure events.  Mailbox Providers of any size, mail sending
>    entities, and end users can use these methods as a basis to create
>    procedures that best suit them.  Some related optional mechanisms are
>    also discussed.

Resolves outstanding DISCUSS positions.

-MSK

From sm@resistor.net  Wed Apr 25 17:00:13 2012
Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23E9411E8096; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 17:00:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.547
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.547 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.052, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2ixoavMYlrjo; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 17:00:12 -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 8339D11E8076; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 17:00:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q3Q0056G001300; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 17:00:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1335398410; i=@resistor.net; bh=GoDB6Gcutl4fac7t20bvCti1VwGn1ID24Olnm6RrBHQ=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=ks73VxNqrdhsYCQt+LUIkv2MENs+NCMYtFHvroAWmhNFVzI+WrYForwQDCM8QBP7Q JVMJRtJKOwkHVFaPKwXQ/WZJ0VK07spswlf9YRP6zsOR24eubFjFT1XQaZm3GaRUOx pD9/Yf4BvyXyWkz1bKz5ewsD0eEfPszSveDQuh+A=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1335398410; i=@resistor.net; bh=GoDB6Gcutl4fac7t20bvCti1VwGn1ID24Olnm6RrBHQ=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=NNJYqDRvtdK3XNCSe9hnLEBgTcBOmKBMkfNqY8GBr2/H5ljKkRORQ0p2i/bbePlIf CvcsHjiAv0m6L40YgKGdaXbg4NFRBZA6tn6Fnp9Grq8pdWUP7iKF9oXXtrxRMXZVEn ZNW9HIpqW0deCkUudmjrUNQLUCF1VLP7CrdYoFY4=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120425161548.0b3ad3c8@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 16:57:22 -0700
To: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <4F97CC0C.6010209@cisco.com>
References: <20120423094450.10355.95358.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392810193D@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <4F97CC0C.6010209@cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, marf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [marf] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-marf-as-14: (with DISCUSS and	COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 00:00:13 -0000

Hi Benoit,
At 03:03 25-04-2012, Benoit Claise wrote:
>Let me ask a very basic question to everybody, including the other 
>IESG members: what is the goal of an Applicability Statement?

That was the question which comes to mind on reading the DISCUSS-DISCUSS.

>1. Explain how the technical specifications are used "in the wild", 
>as you mentioned. So a deployment experience document
>2. Or explain how the technical specifications should be used for 
>the different use cases (generally specified in a requirement document)
>When I read RFC 2026 section 3.2, I conclude for 2.

That section mentions Technical Specification.   The Applicability 
Statement was about restricted "domain of applicability" when using 
the Technical Specification.

One little quirk is:

   "An AS may not have a higher maturity level in the standards track
    than any standards-track TS on which the AS relies (see section 4.1).
    For example, a TS at Draft Standard level may be referenced by an AS
    at the Proposed Standard or Draft Standard level, but not by an AS at
    the Standard level."

There are a few other quirks.  Whether they are relevant or not 
depends on whether one wants to cherry-pick what's in RFC 2606.

Regards,
-sm 


From presnick@qualcomm.com  Wed Apr 25 17:06:48 2012
Return-Path: <presnick@qualcomm.com>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA3A721F8838; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 17:06:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.253
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.253 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.254, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_24=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jm0pRS0VlJL4; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 17:06:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wolverine01.qualcomm.com (wolverine01.qualcomm.com [199.106.114.254]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D02B721F882D; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 17:06:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qualcomm.com; i=presnick@qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1335398807; x=1366934807; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc: subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:x-originating-ip; bh=rhnZL1ok+nA5d0tao1WcnxFfBscAPxJkKRQDNltDpWk=; b=OCejQ5DFQC4pmWOBLNKrB8juDQ42XtqArKcmhy1ScSxJSOWqZ5//uV9l TQIiIeRC8U1I2+WkZQductRJ1wwHMfoEl1Fkejs5Yxs5U/Pu6MQ/SWGCz xKdriJ9guX/0pvQKR6S4H8eonU2WhwAqcOUN9E1tEILp1BnSADFQEfoCe M=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6692"; a="184992434"
Received: from ironmsg03-l.qualcomm.com ([172.30.48.18]) by wolverine01.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 25 Apr 2012 17:06:44 -0700
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,481,1330934400"; d="scan'208";a="228931977"
Received: from nasanexhc08.na.qualcomm.com ([172.30.39.7]) by Ironmsg03-L.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 25 Apr 2012 17:06:44 -0700
Received: from resnick2.qualcomm.com (172.30.39.5) by qcmail1.qualcomm.com (172.30.39.7) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.283.3; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 17:06:44 -0700
Message-ID: <4F989190.20200@qualcomm.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 19:06:40 -0500
From: Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100630 Eudora/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
References: <20120423094450.10355.95358.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>	<9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392810193D@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <4F97CC0C.6010209@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F97CC0C.6010209@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: [172.30.39.5]
Cc: "draft-ietf-marf-as@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-marf-as@tools.ietf.org>, "marf@ietf.org" <marf@ietf.org>, "marf-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <marf-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [marf] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-marf-as-14: (with DISCUSS and	COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 00:06:48 -0000

On 4/25/12 5:03 AM, Benoit Claise wrote:
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> COMMENT:
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> - I see a lot of sentences such as "... discussed in Section X of
>>> [RFC6449]."
>>> And the only sentence in the introduction related to that RFC is:
>>> "Further introduction to this topic may be found in [RFC6449]."
>>> Some sentences explaining what this informational RFC is about would be
>>> very welcome.
>> I propose this as the last paragraph to the Introduction:
>>
>> Further introduction to this topic may be found in<xref 
>> target="RFC6449"/>, which is effectively an Applicability Statement 
>> written outside of the IETF and thus never achieved IETF consensus.  
>> Much of the content for that document was input to this one.
> Thanks. Can you please also a few sentences on how the documents match 
> and differ.
> You know, I see rfc6449, published a few months back, and I see this 
> document draft-ietf-marf-as-14, which will be published approx. 6 months
> And I'm wondering, as someone not involved in this WG...
> - Why do we have two almost similar documents?
> - Why RFC 6449 could not be a MARF document?
> - Which one(s) should I read?
> - Are they conflicting? If yes, I guess that draft-ietf-marf-as-14 
> take precedence. If no, is draft-ietf-marf-as-14 is superset of RFC 
> 6449, and RFC 6449 should not be read any longer.
> - etc...
>
> I'm sure you had very good answers to all these questions, and I'm 
> looking for some written explanation for new comers in this space.

After chatting with Benoit offline, I now believe that your addition 
actually increased confusion rather than decreased. What I think you 
want to say is something like, "Further introduction to this topic may 
be found in 6449, which has more information about the general topic of 
abuse reporting. Many of the specific ARF guidelines in this document 
were taken from the principles presented in 6449." The text you've got 
now 'buries the lead'.

Not required, but I think this might help.

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102


From sm@resistor.net  Wed Apr 25 17:09:44 2012
Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E768921F8839; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 17:09:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.548
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.548 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.051, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iI4SIVwTwqnJ; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 17:09:42 -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 E485421F8838; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 17:09:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q3Q09YkK003170; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 17:09:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1335398980; i=@resistor.net; bh=xG41dG7lohm3o22oAnF3zS9kpF7YxxGdk1ylKJ9R0us=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=NvaiyIR7Oo/gxaGUhuPsBzE7d/+BFHxWm/dAwv+ae/AaytIZC53KmSAabe2ia59U3 u/ndTN6WVhUVaH2X+EponvMhggkOclOUFtSUivBM7s4/BQw8DggPe6UMZe5pYbnSFM 9VckqqsTRVWLQVWsFXGV95QWIKliyHBrDHWrbV2U=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1335398980; i=@resistor.net; bh=xG41dG7lohm3o22oAnF3zS9kpF7YxxGdk1ylKJ9R0us=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=ZYSjZO1QdZo4bkkid/pf8l4uSpDKH8fOaGdA8mIjWbb/fAwnvmtm2OENtR7EJafvW 8RQYbabULBg84GaV3Bpb80MHWNsJQuj/Cl8jrInMiVem2OKAS5fRTTn0TJExB9tsqB tfyiO/fOIPQZlplDJOeRA9WZfg0DVRxNfbzvYDlo=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120425170025.0af68d50@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 17:08:48 -0700
To: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <4F9883CA.9050502@cisco.com>
References: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E003928101C5B@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <4F97BEAE.9000707@tana.it> <4F9883CA.9050502@cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: IESG IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, marf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [marf] Proposed changes to draft-ietf-marf-as
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 00:09:45 -0000

Hi Benoit,
At 16:07 25-04-2012, Benoit Claise wrote:
>You know, I see rfc6449, published a few months back, and I see this 
>document draft-ietf-marf-as-14, which will be published approx. 6 months
>And I'm wondering, as someone not involved in this WG...
>- Why do we have two almost similar documents?
>- Why RFC 6449 could not be a MARF document?

 From RFC 6449:

   "This document may not be modified, and derivative works of it may not
    be created, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to
    translate it into languages other than English."

As a note to John Levine, RFC 6449 clearly says that "it does not 
represent the consensus of the IETF."

Regards,
-sm


From msk@cloudmark.com  Wed Apr 25 19:07:59 2012
Return-Path: <msk@cloudmark.com>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58C6321E80C9 for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 19:07:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.631
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.631 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.032, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JrFW805j6Ctb for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 19:07:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.cloudmark.com (cmgw1.cloudmark.com [208.83.136.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84C3921E8043 for <marf@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 19:07:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com ([72.5.239.26]) by mail.cloudmark.com with bizsmtp id 2S7b1j0010as01C01S7bcJ; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 19:07:47 -0700
X-CMAE-Match: 0
X-CMAE-Score: 0.00
X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=VPNfbqzX c=1 sm=1 a=QMZKka45TBd+hNGtXG2bIg==:17 a=ldJM1g7oyCcA:10 a=vGmJt43tM7QA:10 a=zutiEJmiVI4A:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=EUspDBNiAAAA:8 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=ZPIc7RCp-tn5NJzs1bYA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=IG2fH9E8heMA:10 a=lZB815dzVvQA:10 a=QMZKka45TBd+hNGtXG2bIg==:117
Received: from EXCH-MBX901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::addf:849a:f71c:4a82]) by exch-htcas902.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::54de:dc60:5f3e:334%10]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 19:07:35 -0700
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>, Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-marf-as-14: (with DISCUSS and	COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHNITXMIbyZo9yVYUqgbSkbCNchdJaqoG6QgAEn8gCAAOt1AP//rDng
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 02:07:34 +0000
Message-ID: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E003928103065@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <20120423094450.10355.95358.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392810193D@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <4F97CC0C.6010209@cisco.com> <4F989190.20200@qualcomm.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F989190.20200@qualcomm.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [67.160.203.60]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cloudmark.com; s=default; t=1335406067; bh=vKZWSbKv0u2uRYptzChJUgljkE6w8/Lcra/LphbC4Og=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=q5q9ZubgZJT4MInfx7d+kh9rSx/yucWnBwEuiNkxPkS2VqUH97+dspoXxsrqhwHkb v5w7Jvu6xKI3SOlllkFLpkY6hl+QTwlidxfrL2MidgL3/J/jV6jBuRRt9rdjvcErlU aMTZ72wyMBvT7rZ8iNVVjN2M+fCHQTxPYnFkM4Pk=
Cc: "draft-ietf-marf-as@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-marf-as@tools.ietf.org>, "marf-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <marf-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "marf@ietf.org" <marf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [marf] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-marf-as-14: (with DISCUSS and	COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 02:07:59 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pete Resnick [mailto:presnick@qualcomm.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 5:07 PM
> To: Benoit Claise
> Cc: Murray S. Kucherawy; draft-ietf-marf-as@tools.ietf.org; marf-
> chairs@tools.ietf.org; The IESG; marf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-marf-as-14: (with
> DISCUSS and COMMENT)
>=20
> After chatting with Benoit offline, I now believe that your addition
> actually increased confusion rather than decreased. What I think you
> want to say is something like, "Further introduction to this topic may
> be found in 6449, which has more information about the general topic of
> abuse reporting. Many of the specific ARF guidelines in this document
> were taken from the principles presented in 6449." The text you've got
> now 'buries the lead'.
>=20
> Not required, but I think this might help.

I'm fine with that if you want to do it as an RFC Editor note.  If you need=
 a -17, let me know.

-MSK

From sklist@kitterman.com  Wed Apr 25 19:31:53 2012
Return-Path: <sklist@kitterman.com>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3260911E80C7 for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 19:31:53 -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 ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6x2eFEoyzUVY for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 19:31:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout02.controlledmail.com (mailout02.controlledmail.com [72.81.252.18]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A237711E80BA for <marf@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 19:31:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout02.controlledmail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailout02.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2CDE20E40E9; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 22:31:46 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=kitterman.com; s=2007-00; t=1335407506; bh=ZoU5z5msFVjaZhBt+uRSfsdImBWs/ITPALPEgloqzn0=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type; b=hG/x9CoY2r8/xdHZzXKxv9a0G6VCqN1C34ysN8e+7Dy4dLj9FYwYzZSYboD0wGxBp 0CFMwnTpW1bmbmwOqV0ssvjqNVaSS/yhl+vbd8jDowV3oerZlMj3XLbYpUPj1grOep 6GbHlay6VWcf0hZloF6/NvnXnX5kpxVwobeCOw1M=
Received: from scott-latitude-e6320.localnet (static-72-81-252-21.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [72.81.252.21]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailout02.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AE21220E4099;  Wed, 25 Apr 2012 22:31:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
To: marf@ietf.org
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 22:31:46 -0400
Message-ID: <2738950.6u00tuJOUs@scott-latitude-e6320>
User-Agent: KMail/4.8.2 (Linux/3.2.0-23-generic-pae; KDE/4.8.2; i686; ; )
In-Reply-To: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E003928103065@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <20120423094450.10355.95358.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4F989190.20200@qualcomm.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E003928103065@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-AV-Checked: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
Subject: Re: [marf] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-marf-as-14: (with DISCUSS and	COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 02:31:53 -0000

On Thursday, April 26, 2012 02:07:34 AM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Pete Resnick [mailto:presnick@qualcomm.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 5:07 PM
> > To: Benoit Claise
> > Cc: Murray S. Kucherawy; draft-ietf-marf-as@tools.ietf.org; marf-
> > chairs@tools.ietf.org; The IESG; marf@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-marf-as-14: (with
> > DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> > 
> > After chatting with Benoit offline, I now believe that your addition
> > actually increased confusion rather than decreased. What I think you
> > want to say is something like, "Further introduction to this topic may
> > be found in 6449, which has more information about the general topic of
> > abuse reporting. Many of the specific ARF guidelines in this document
> > were taken from the principles presented in 6449." The text you've got
> > now 'buries the lead'.
> > 
> > Not required, but I think this might help.
> 
> I'm fine with that if you want to do it as an RFC Editor note.  If you need
> a -17, let me know.

If you do a -17, please fix the believe thing too.

Scott K

From msk@cloudmark.com  Wed Apr 25 22:06:24 2012
Return-Path: <msk@cloudmark.com>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E96121F8993 for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 22:06:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.63
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.63 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.031, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JCi4KFHeisnY for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 22:06:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.cloudmark.com (cmgw1.cloudmark.com [208.83.136.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80BDF21F898E for <marf@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 22:06:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com ([72.5.239.25]) by mail.cloudmark.com with bizsmtp id 2V6B1j0010ZaKgw01V6BM9; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 22:06:11 -0700
X-CMAE-Match: 0
X-CMAE-Score: 0.00
X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=VPNfbqzX c=1 sm=1 a=LdFkGDrDWH2mcjCZERnC4w==:17 a=ldJM1g7oyCcA:10 a=TAusAD6eZXQA:10 a=zutiEJmiVI4A:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=ZsJ8yYknrQGjMJgApS0A:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=lZB815dzVvQA:10 a=LdFkGDrDWH2mcjCZERnC4w==:117
Received: from EXCH-MBX901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::addf:849a:f71c:4a82]) by exch-htcas901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::2524:76b6:a865:539c%10]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 22:06:12 -0700
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: "marf@ietf.org" <marf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [marf] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-marf-as-14: (with DISCUSS and	COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHNI1TNohrFNLIgu021L6CxZZMhGJasjctQ
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 05:06:10 +0000
Message-ID: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039281031E1@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <20120423094450.10355.95358.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4F989190.20200@qualcomm.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E003928103065@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <2738950.6u00tuJOUs@scott-latitude-e6320>
In-Reply-To: <2738950.6u00tuJOUs@scott-latitude-e6320>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [67.160.203.60]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cloudmark.com; s=default; t=1335416771; bh=PLxsGDUef5aeFV2tn9kQVN/6pH7QvWA/e1Q+79cgXyo=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=V28ClG6MPpBJ4wMpgPOllGdnfib8C7JRgG1iA9EE4gDZB2k74yEMnZ2wpq+pRKGq3 /l7HDDxPtSROyy6G/16m4rsI81xzUAlYIShdygOTunl7dIPgQyQfK0p/q5UNXaDrae T/mq5DaDd4Q5Mq4mZD7rbWVTDSOb+dvA/S7KwIb0=
Subject: Re: [marf] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-marf-as-14: (with	DISCUSS and	COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 05:06:25 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: marf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:marf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of S=
cott Kitterman
> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 7:32 PM
> To: marf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [marf] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-marf-as-14:
> (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
>=20
> If you do a -17, please fix the believe thing too.

Yes, I'll include that in either -17 or the RFC Editor request.

-MSK

From vesely@tana.it  Thu Apr 26 09:16:23 2012
Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81E1221E8120 for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 09:16:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.635
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.635 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.084,  BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E0k21XiDLYpY for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 09:16:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (www.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0742B21F863E for <marf@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 09:16:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=test; t=1335456970; bh=OG8lsKt4Ta4yBsX7jUwwmsutM7sCN43cnb2MNNEJX7g=; l=1807; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:CC:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=WLrekz+lE4u06HR99iOdo75LmlJLKeLRav42GezUDHErKoRXFoa+E1bQscKYzMVcF AlD4yLR424oI7AlLe9R2g1ES1I4HP9n2P0HppKn+be8E0omxHJmB4OqeZtQL0TKM75 +CWw5BqG5dxxIJy3b4A520yCze/8UwZsctyx8afA=
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, 26 Apr 2012 18:16:10 +0200 id 00000000005DC039.000000004F9974CA.0000788F
Message-ID: <4F9974CA.7040501@tana.it>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 18:16:10 +0200
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
References: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E003928101C5B@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <4F97BEAE.9000707@tana.it> <4F9883CA.9050502@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F9883CA.9050502@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: marf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [marf] Proposed changes to draft-ietf-marf-as
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 16:16:23 -0000

Hi Benoit:

On Thu 26/Apr/2012 17:15:49 +0200 Benoit Claise wrote:
> 
> I prefer your proposal very much, as it addresses my questions (asked
> part of my review):

Thanks.  The question it in turn raises, however, is whether a crash
course on TS and AS intricacies is a worthy answer to the doubts that
those documents' differing categorizations might generate.

>     Can you please also a few sentences on how the documents match and
>     differ.
>     You know, I see rfc6449, published a few months back, and I see
>     this document draft-ietf-marf-as-14, which will be published
>     approx. 6 months
>     And I'm wondering, as someone not involved in this WG...
>     - Why do we have two almost similar documents?
>     - Why RFC 6449 could not be a MARF document?

In addition to what SM pointed out, let me note that it was a WG
decision to proceed that way.  See e.g.
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf/current/msg00980.html

>     - Which one(s) should I read?

Possibly both, or the AS and the 6449 sections it refers.

>     - Are they conflicting? If yes, I guess that draft-ietf-marf-as-14
>     take precedence. If no, is draft-ietf-marf-as-14 is superset of
>     RFC 6449, and RFC 6449 should not be read any longer.

They're not in conflict.  However, the MAAWG document is clearly
focused on quite large mailbox providers.  Unsolicited reports, that
were relegated to an appendix, have been expanded so as to bring abuse
reporting within the reach of mailbox providers of any size.
Unsolicited reports can be viewed as auto subscriptions to a feedback
loop stream of solicited reports.  RFC 6449's detailed descriptions
apply to the latter topic.

Authentication failure is a somewhat unrelated use case, factored from
other WG documents, that was conveniently added here later.

hth

From presnick@qualcomm.com  Thu Apr 26 09:30:17 2012
Return-Path: <presnick@qualcomm.com>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAAC421E812D for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 09:30:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.551
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.048, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9mdjeG21ShwL for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 09:30:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wolverine02.qualcomm.com (wolverine02.qualcomm.com [199.106.114.251]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C95321E80BA for <marf@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 09:30:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qualcomm.com; i=presnick@qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1335457817; x=1366993817; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc: subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:x-originating-ip; bh=ruz2NaNWRgFeuD+r/IGFBkPzI+X5PQprd7SMj19o/DE=; b=G8+juZFHc8N8/RYqendIPB26txelSLUrLxkiBGapsZY7HEgCToHLPXxN GZKW4a7r1wsiIYnQhTun2wIZ3i/NRJq0bDhx/n8gi3f90ITL5OL/MRjGU Or+hpOuOW5RFYtcfJNHfFvqT4iFtRKouvj64NeyolXHj+gD4mZvqd3rhT g=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6693"; a="182932938"
Received: from ironmsg04-l.qualcomm.com ([172.30.48.19]) by wolverine02.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 26 Apr 2012 09:30:16 -0700
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,486,1330934400"; d="scan'208";a="204939814"
Received: from nasanexhc04.na.qualcomm.com ([172.30.48.17]) by Ironmsg04-L.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 26 Apr 2012 09:30:09 -0700
Received: from resnick2.qualcomm.com (172.30.48.1) by qcmail1.qualcomm.com (172.30.48.17) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.283.3; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 09:30:06 -0700
Message-ID: <4F99780A.1070900@qualcomm.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 11:30:02 -0500
From: Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100630 Eudora/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
References: <20120423094450.10355.95358.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>	<4F989190.20200@qualcomm.com>	<9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E003928103065@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>	<2738950.6u00tuJOUs@scott-latitude-e6320> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039281031E1@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
In-Reply-To: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039281031E1@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: [172.30.48.1]
Cc: "marf@ietf.org" <marf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [marf] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-marf-as-14:	(with DISCUSS and	COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 16:30:18 -0000

On 4/26/12 12:06 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: marf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:marf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Scott Kitterman
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 7:32 PM
>> To: marf@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [marf] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-marf-as-14:
>> (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
>>
>> If you do a -17, please fix the believe thing too.
>>      
> Yes, I'll include that in either -17 or the RFC Editor request.
>    

Murray, please give me OLD/NEW for these two changes and I'll put it in 
the RFC Editor notes. I'd rather not have a -17 in this particular case.

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102


From msk@cloudmark.com  Thu Apr 26 10:05:25 2012
Return-Path: <msk@cloudmark.com>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 903AF21E80DA for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 10:05:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.558
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.558 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.041, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MP685YORSHYv for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 10:05:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.cloudmark.com (cmgw1.cloudmark.com [208.83.136.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA5B621E801E for <marf@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 10:05:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com ([72.5.239.26]) by mail.cloudmark.com with bizsmtp id 2h5b1j0010as01C01h5bCM; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 10:05:35 -0700
X-CMAE-Match: 0
X-CMAE-Score: 0.00
X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=K4ag7lqI c=1 sm=1 a=QMZKka45TBd+hNGtXG2bIg==:17 a=LvckAehuu68A:10 a=jFJSP0USmwIA:10 a=zutiEJmiVI4A:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=EUspDBNiAAAA:8 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=VfXBCpKm-0JUrDLpo2gA:9 a=UTXjic7dlDEF9oe4XPcA:7 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=IG2fH9E8heMA:10 a=lZB815dzVvQA:10 a=QMZKka45TBd+hNGtXG2bIg==:117
Received: from EXCH-MBX901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::addf:849a:f71c:4a82]) by exch-htcas902.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::54de:dc60:5f3e:334%10]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 10:05:12 -0700
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>
Thread-Topic: [marf] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-marf-as-14:	(with DISCUSS and	COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHNI8nqygl0MAt8ukOWsJJ+wHk4pJatVLiQ
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 17:05:12 +0000
Message-ID: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E003928103D0D@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <20120423094450.10355.95358.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4F989190.20200@qualcomm.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E003928103065@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <2738950.6u00tuJOUs@scott-latitude-e6320> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039281031E1@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <4F99780A.1070900@qualcomm.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F99780A.1070900@qualcomm.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [172.20.2.121]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cloudmark.com; s=default; t=1335459935; bh=+s3WLjGOkDrG4U8/G9GwI4IDBlR0ZL6dwN3seicA1kc=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=dDrLXndLJ5kQ4PBDFXG1SOSuwx+EZM3R0pmBc0Hr9e25u+524Dx8gkuLid47Xgwj3 zWdLSmS/PU53QwXtDprOhZpo2NHUi1CrUC09Qsh9STkT+ghQPfmjsAqdcOJFUJC9Ao HV0rL11GEiplF4pwGSuM3nyOo/K4aqgkBO+X1mCg=
Cc: "marf@ietf.org" <marf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [marf] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-marf-as-14:	(with DISCUSS and	COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 17:05:25 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pete Resnick [mailto:presnick@qualcomm.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 9:30 AM
> To: Murray S. Kucherawy
> Cc: marf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [marf] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-marf-as-14: (wi=
th DISCUSS and COMMENT)
>=20
> Murray, please give me OLD/NEW for these two changes and I'll put it in
> the RFC Editor notes. I'd rather not have a -17 in this particular
> case.

Ask and ye shall receive.

OLD (Section 1):

   Further introduction to this topic may be found in [RFC6449], which
   is effectively an Applicability Statement written outside of the IETF
   and thus never achieved IETF consensus.  Much of the content for that
   document was input to this one.

NEW:

   Further introduction to this topic may be found in [RFC6449], which
   has more information about the general topic of abuse reporting.  Many
   of the specific ARF guidelines in this document were taken from the
   principles presented in [RFC6449].

OLD (Section 5.1):

   2.  Message authentication is generally a good idea, but it is
       especially important to encourage credibility of and thus
       response to unsolicited reports.  Therefore, as with any other
       message, Feedback Providers sending unsolicited reports SHOULD
       send reports that they believe will pass Sender Policy Framework
       ([RFC4408]) and/or DomainKeys Identified Mail ([RFC6376]) checks.

NEW:

   2.  Message authentication is generally a good idea, but it is
       especially important to encourage credibility of and thus
       response to unsolicited reports.  Therefore, as with any other
       message, Feedback Providers sending unsolicited reports SHOULD
       send reports that they expect will pass Sender Policy Framework
       ([RFC4408]) and/or DomainKeys Identified Mail ([RFC6376]) checks.

-MSK

From bclaise@cisco.com  Thu Apr 26 02:41:36 2012
Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B443221F85F9; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 02:41:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.206
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.206 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.207, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_24=0.6]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7RqwpEmzY3vn; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 02:41:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from av-tac-bru.cisco.com (weird-brew.cisco.com [144.254.15.118]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3DB121F864E; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 02:41:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned
Received: from strange-brew.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-bru.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q3Q9fU3W020110; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 11:41:30 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.60.67.87] (ams-bclaise-8916.cisco.com [10.60.67.87]) by strange-brew.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q3Q9fRCh009562; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 11:41:29 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <4F991847.9070501@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 11:41:27 +0200
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>
References: <20120423094450.10355.95358.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>	<9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392810193D@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <4F97CC0C.6010209@cisco.com> <4F989190.20200@qualcomm.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F989190.20200@qualcomm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 09:27:24 -0700
Cc: "draft-ietf-marf-as@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-marf-as@tools.ietf.org>, "marf@ietf.org" <marf@ietf.org>, "marf-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <marf-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [marf] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-marf-as-14: (with DISCUSS and	COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 09:41:36 -0000

On 26/04/2012 02:06, Pete Resnick wrote:
> On 4/25/12 5:03 AM, Benoit Claise wrote:
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> COMMENT:
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> - I see a lot of sentences such as "... discussed in Section X of
>>>> [RFC6449]."
>>>> And the only sentence in the introduction related to that RFC is:
>>>> "Further introduction to this topic may be found in [RFC6449]."
>>>> Some sentences explaining what this informational RFC is about 
>>>> would be
>>>> very welcome.
>>> I propose this as the last paragraph to the Introduction:
>>>
>>> Further introduction to this topic may be found in<xref 
>>> target="RFC6449"/>, which is effectively an Applicability Statement 
>>> written outside of the IETF and thus never achieved IETF consensus.  
>>> Much of the content for that document was input to this one.
>> Thanks. Can you please also a few sentences on how the documents 
>> match and differ.
>> You know, I see rfc6449, published a few months back, and I see this 
>> document draft-ietf-marf-as-14, which will be published approx. 6 months
>> And I'm wondering, as someone not involved in this WG...
>> - Why do we have two almost similar documents?
>> - Why RFC 6449 could not be a MARF document?
>> - Which one(s) should I read?
>> - Are they conflicting? If yes, I guess that draft-ietf-marf-as-14 
>> take precedence. If no, is draft-ietf-marf-as-14 is superset of RFC 
>> 6449, and RFC 6449 should not be read any longer.
>> - etc...
>>
>> I'm sure you had very good answers to all these questions, and I'm 
>> looking for some written explanation for new comers in this space.
>
> After chatting with Benoit offline, I now believe that your addition 
> actually increased confusion rather than decreased. What I think you 
> want to say is something like, "Further introduction to this topic may 
> be found in 6449, which has more information about the general topic 
> of abuse reporting. Many of the specific ARF guidelines in this 
> document were taken from the principles presented in 6449." 
That works for me.

Regards, Benoit.
> The text you've got now 'buries the lead'.
>
> Not required, but I think this might help.
>
> pr
>


From barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com  Fri Apr 27 10:06:11 2012
Return-Path: <barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDA0021F85FB for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 10:06:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.962
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.962 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.015, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Sa8Ph0sSg3oi for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 10:06:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lb0-f172.google.com (mail-lb0-f172.google.com [209.85.217.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92A3421F8610 for <marf@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 10:06:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by lbbgm13 with SMTP id gm13so733208lbb.31 for <marf@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 10:06:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=3Z00uLJB9gP3Cu54Tz1V2xl3cBy6lEc0dyiI84hW/QI=; b=kDIP/4LI4YSiKUMAPvfMcAvODWbVobkRANUGx+13oAU04+LRyhozvDqSmAKMwl+XGJ mcXeegiZjRXt3FD4zbqH82bVk08vCnSq5rxEntUH43RXU1l54nHQ9UMBv24wKdMEhLb/ q/sPtz6GI/KZxOfEzvH0/+SnZeVqC4P3hPNnOaBR3jxD0uWZYqIHv8uCLz5R+ivJLuy3 2ZHbfmCrKvwj23ofitTwYH3hU5VNN+6OqSx8pqdJJ6Xb6IOh/m0pK6XliNIpxza/hL7i rTec5Gg5ANbD/NIogY2SG3SoWKtv+VEPmGp6EGt0qX5Z24sgJr9rrYjAQMcxAJNB4QHK 2ulg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.112.88.98 with SMTP id bf2mr5855111lbb.30.1335546369628; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 10:06:09 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com
Received: by 10.112.7.7 with HTTP; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 10:06:09 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 13:06:09 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: sX2EHlIfxEh-Jzf7aRqkP7anrxk
Message-ID: <CAC4RtVD7QnckxrphFF7LLCORS839P2eCz7L-V2hOZBuynR_hRg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: Message Abuse Report Format working group <marf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Subject: [marf] Final MARF document approved
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 17:06:12 -0000

The official announcement will go out on Monday, but the final MARF
document, draft-ietf-marf-as, was approved on yesterday's IESG
telechat.  The working group will stay open until the three documents
that are pending (draft-ietf-marf-as, draft-ietf-marf-dkim-reporting,
and draft-ietf-marf-spf-reporting) leave the RFC Editor and get
published as RFCs (in case we should need to have further discussion
during the final RFC Editor processing, which sometimes happens).  But
we can pretty much say that our work here is done.

Thank you all for your valuable contributions and for getting the
documents finished well.  And two special thanks:

A posthumous thanks to JD Falk.  JD did great work with us, with
MAAWG, and with the industry in general.  And he was a good friend,
and a great guy to know.

And to Murray: thanks for being an exceptional co-chair!  This was
Murray's first chair position, and he started excellently and only got
better.  Thanks for taking more than your share of the workload and
making this a very easy working group for me!  [And for also being a
good friend, and a great guy to know.]

Everyone, stay subscribed here, and we'll let you all know when the
RFCs come out and when the working group is officially closed.  I
expect that we'll leave the mailing list open as a place for
discussion afterward.

Barry, ex-chair, now-AD

From msk@cloudmark.com  Fri Apr 27 10:37:46 2012
Return-Path: <msk@cloudmark.com>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2430E21F8655 for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 10:37:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.558
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.558 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.041, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7i86WKsoUivi for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 10:37:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.cloudmark.com (cmgw1.cloudmark.com [208.83.136.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D29B21F864F for <marf@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 10:37:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com ([72.5.239.25]) by mail.cloudmark.com with bizsmtp id 35da1j0010ZaKgw015daWP; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 10:37:34 -0700
X-CMAE-Match: 0
X-CMAE-Score: 0.00
X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=VPNfbqzX c=1 sm=1 a=LdFkGDrDWH2mcjCZERnC4w==:17 a=LvckAehuu68A:10 a=VROBJxHKOTQA:10 a=zutiEJmiVI4A:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=6Dh9MRSay6KtHh7fEPMA:9 a=uAeTk1cvYRiCsxXPnpQA:7 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=lZB815dzVvQA:10 a=LdFkGDrDWH2mcjCZERnC4w==:117
Received: from EXCH-MBX901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::addf:849a:f71c:4a82]) by exch-htcas901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::2524:76b6:a865:539c%10]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 10:37:34 -0700
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: Message Abuse Report Format working group <marf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [marf] Final MARF document approved
Thread-Index: AQHNJJgNbksV0q5Vjkeg/Dvj19NPapau7okQ
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 17:37:34 +0000
Message-ID: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E003928104F91@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <CAC4RtVD7QnckxrphFF7LLCORS839P2eCz7L-V2hOZBuynR_hRg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAC4RtVD7QnckxrphFF7LLCORS839P2eCz7L-V2hOZBuynR_hRg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [172.20.2.121]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cloudmark.com; s=default; t=1335548254; bh=uDh0FoODF8JRyuin1Gr7QQ58DPk6DNEUTn0N/O2Ggck=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=HT4Kf1lECWsVoAvF2VNhfrQW2nRILFrNo9x7krAXXNn4SJYXq5emrn/CGh21fUfhR Q8iP0LuiGpOUz31vC/tde/dwhlHcRcQ0Jc1TlN0eoXmbZhrQP/3UIo9DSoWmDhYKr/ 1ofnNA9F5i5Xcj0xMHU/tuPWmoBID+ziXUvNr1aM=
Subject: Re: [marf] Final MARF document approved
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 17:37:46 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: marf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:marf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of B=
arry Leiba
> Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 10:06 AM
> To: Message Abuse Report Format working group
> Subject: [marf] Final MARF document approved
>=20
> Thank you all for your valuable contributions and for getting the
> documents finished well.

A +1 from me as well.  There was a lot of work put into the six documents w=
e produced.

> And two special thanks:
>=20
> A posthumous thanks to JD Falk.  JD did great work with us, with MAAWG,
> and with the industry in general.  And he was a good friend, and a
> great guy to know.

+1e+06

> And to Murray: thanks for being an exceptional co-chair!  This was
> Murray's first chair position, and he started excellently and only got
> better.  Thanks for taking more than your share of the workload and
> making this a very easy working group for me!  [And for also being a
> good friend, and a great guy to know.]

And thanks for mentoring me through my first co-chairing experience!  You m=
ade it fun.

I think MARF had a few challenges but was mostly smooth sailing thanks to a=
ll our contributors.  I'll be taking what I learned from this experience in=
to APPSAWG and (with any luck) WEIRDS.  Hope to see you all in there.

-MSK

From dotis@mail-abuse.org  Fri Apr 27 11:24:47 2012
Return-Path: <dotis@mail-abuse.org>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5FD921F8693 for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 11:24:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.497
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.497 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.102, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id z4tphyZLvPEv for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 11:24:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailserv.mail-abuse.org (mailserv.mail-abuse.org [150.70.98.118]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1734721F8688 for <marf@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 11:24:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from US-DOUGO-MAC.local (unknown [10.31.37.9]) by mailserv.mail-abuse.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id ABCC7174031C for <marf@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 18:24:46 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <4F9AE46E.3050508@mail-abuse.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 11:24:46 -0700
From: Douglas Otis <dotis@mail-abuse.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: marf@ietf.org
References: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FAF8D@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <938CD663-D2D5-4E65-B3D4-B02424DC7124@wordtothewise.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FB6A1@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
In-Reply-To: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FB6A1@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [marf] Reviewers for draft-kucherawy-marf-source-ports
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 18:24:48 -0000

On 4/19/12 4:26 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> Comments inline.
>
> From: marf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:marf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Steve Atkins
> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 11:50 AM
> To: marf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [marf] Reviewers for draft-kucherawy-marf-source-ports
>
> It looks reasonable at first glance. But I have some comments.
>
> MARF is intended for reporting sightings of email. This extension is intended to make reports of traffic from behind NATs able to differentiate between users behind a NAT. That implies that it's expected for legitimate email to be sent from behind a shared NAT. I wouldn't expect to see that in the wild, certainly not at a provider that's well enough set up that they're accepting ARF reports and keeping detailed access logs and so on - rather I'd expect that mail to be going through an authenticated smarthost, and no non-authenticated SMTP traffic being emitted from the NAT itself.
>
> [MSK: That's probably generally true, but I'd imagine it's not universally true.  For the cases where it's not, the data reported by this extension header field might prove useful.]
>
> Do carrier-grade NATs in general use really log connections in enough detail that the source port is adequate to identify the user of the NAT? AIUI many of them cycle source ports almost immediately, with no persistent relationship with the user, so they'd need to persistently log every TCP connection every user made for this to be useful data.
>
> [MSK: This is what Section 3 of [LOG] advocates.  We're simply matching what they're doing.]
>
> For source port to be useful to the sender, even assuming they have NAT connection logs, the timestamp of the report is going to be much more critical than for previous ARF usage. Dynamically assigned IP addresses tend to last hours, dynamically assigned NAT mappings just seconds. We don't mention anything about timestamps in [ARF], other than to say it should be in RFC5322 format. Do we need to stress the need for NTP-level timing accuracy at every host involved, or is the mention of that in [LOG] enough?
>
> [MSK: We could certainly repeat that advice, or stress the importance of that part of [LOG].]
>
> [LOG] recommends UTC timestamps for everything. Do we want to encourage that for ARF too?
>
> [MSK: I agree with Scott; email date format captures enough information to convert to UTC if needed.  We could say that the report generator MAY convert the ARF date field, whatever it's called (can't recall), in UTC to enable quicker log correlation.]
>
> What about ident?
>
> [MSK: Does anyone still use that?]
Dear Murray,

LSNs or CGNs headed in the direction of using NAT-PMP.

See http://miniupnp.free.fr/nat-pmp.html for a general description.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cheshire-nat-pmp-03
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements-05
Note: REQ-13: A CGN SHOULD NOT log destination addresses or ports.

Also see:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pcp-base-24#section-11.5

The significant difference from UPnP is NAT-PMP scheme is resource 
driven rather than being based upon uninformed (scanning) requests.  In 
addition, resources can be reassigned as needed.  Both of these features 
better suit LSN or CGN efforts, especially when port resources are being 
shared across perhaps hundreds of separately sourced transactions.  
Also, such use is likely to be the fault of recipients failing to 
provide IPv6 connectivity causing access providers to employ a large 
scale NAT solution.   NAT-PMP is able to inform the client of both the 
translated port mapping as well as what is the current external IPv4 
address.  What was missing was a translation to the current IPv4 to IPv6 
translation.  The purpose of NAT-PMP was to not be limited by static 
assignments. Source assessments require mapping connections in real-time 
via PCP.  As such, adding ports rather than requiring real-time mapping 
would be the wrong approach.  No one will be retaining the logs as they 
will be far too dynamic.

Regards,
Douglas Otis

From iesg-secretary@ietf.org  Mon Apr 30 11:03:49 2012
Return-Path: <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9CC111E8081; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 11:03:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.468
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.468 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.131, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jIP7DOuLAkSn; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 11:03:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E61B021E802B; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 11:03:48 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.02
Message-ID: <20120430180348.16526.25293.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 11:03:48 -0700
Cc: marf mailing list <marf@ietf.org>, marf chair <marf-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Subject: [marf] Protocol Action: 'Creation and Use of Email Feedback Reports: An	Applicability Statement for the Abuse Reporting Format (ARF)'	to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-marf-as-16.txt)
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 18:03:50 -0000

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Creation and Use of Email Feedback Reports: An Applicability Statement
   for the Abuse Reporting Format (ARF)'
  (draft-ietf-marf-as-16.txt) as a Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Messaging Abuse Reporting Format
Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Pete Resnick and Barry Leiba.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-marf-as/




Technical Summary 

RFC 5965 defines an extensible, machine-readable format intended for 
mail operators to report feedback about received email to other 
parties. This Applicability Statement describes common methods for 
utilizing this format for reporting both abuse and authentication 
failure events. Mailbox Providers of any size, mail sending 
entities, and end users can use these methods as a basis to create 
procedures that best suit them. Some related optional mechanisms are 
also discussed. 

Working Group Summary 

The primary contention point in the development of this document involved 
what and how much to include, striking a balance between an Applicability 
Statement and an "implementation cookbook". Because we have limited 
recent experience with Applicability Statements, the participants were not 
sure what belongs in them, and what constitutes "too much detail" that's 
best left for other forms of documentation. 

In the end, the working group produced a version that most of the 
participants could be happy with, and the document as presented has the 
broad support of the MARF working group. 

Document Quality 

This document reflects the current MARF implementations in the field, 
of which there are many. That said, we do expect that it might be 
modified over time, as the MARF base specification itself matures along 
the Standards Track. 

Personnel 

Barry Leiba is the document shepherd; Pete Resnick is the 
responsible AD. 

RFC Editor Notes

Please make the following changes to -16:


OLD (Section 1):

   Further introduction to this topic may be found in [RFC6449], which
   is effectively an Applicability Statement written outside of the IETF
   and thus never achieved IETF consensus.  Much of the content for that
   document was input to this one.

NEW:

   Further introduction to this topic may be found in [RFC6449], which
   has more information about the general topic of abuse reporting.  Many
   of the specific ARF guidelines in this document were taken from the
   principles presented in [RFC6449].

OLD (Section 5.1):

   2.  Message authentication is generally a good idea, but it is
       especially important to encourage credibility of and thus
       response to unsolicited reports.  Therefore, as with any other
       message, Feedback Providers sending unsolicited reports SHOULD
       send reports that they believe will pass Sender Policy Framework
       ([RFC4408]) and/or DomainKeys Identified Mail ([RFC6376]) checks.

NEW:

   2.  Message authentication is generally a good idea, but it is
       especially important to encourage credibility of and thus
       response to unsolicited reports.  Therefore, as with any other
       message, Feedback Providers sending unsolicited reports SHOULD
       send reports that they expect will pass Sender Policy Framework
       ([RFC4408]) and/or DomainKeys Identified Mail ([RFC6376]) checks.