RE: OPES Re-Charter

From gvrophmmifzkmac199@bungi.com Tue Jun 1 15:50:08 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA18101 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 2004 15:50:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BVFGy-0002Od-Ts for opes-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jun 2004 15:50:09 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BVF6U-000006-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jun 2004 15:39:19 -0400 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BVEmC-0003XT-00; Tue, 01 Jun 2004 15:18:21 -0400 Received: from [198.86.253.194] (helo=65.246.255.50) by mx2.foretec.com with smtp (Exim 4.24) id 1BVEm9-0005R7-9M; Tue, 01 Jun 2004 15:18:17 -0400 Received: from 248.148.52.239 by 198.86.253.194; Tue, 01 Jun 2004 13:08:27 -0600 Message-ID: From: "Louis Rainey" Reply-To: "Louis Rainey" To: nsis@ietf.org Cc: nsis-admin@ietf.org, nsis-request@ietf.org, olicy@ietf.org, onmib-admin@ietf.org, opes-archive@ietf.org, ops-area@ietf.org, ops-chairs@ietf.org, ops-nm@ietf.org, orpr-admin@ietf.org, owner@ietf.org, owner-ietf@ietf.org, owner-ietf-announce@ietf.org Subject: Responding back to your email.. Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2004 22:12:27 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--249114045133947098" X-Priority: 3 X-IP: 0.129.150.227 X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=7.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,FORGED_RCVD_NET_HELO, FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS,HTML_20_30,HTML_MESSAGE,MIME_HTML_NO_CHARSET, MIME_HTML_ONLY,MIME_HTML_ONLY_MULTI,PRIORITY_NO_NAME, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO autolearn=no version=2.60 X-Spam-Report: * 0.9 FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS From: ends in numbers * 0.3 RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO Received: contains a numeric HELO * 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message * 0.5 HTML_20_30 BODY: Message is 20% to 30% HTML * 0.1 MIME_HTML_ONLY BODY: Message only has text/html MIME parts * 0.7 MIME_HTML_NO_CHARSET RAW: Message text in HTML without charset * 3.0 FORGED_RCVD_NET_HELO Host HELO'd using the wrong IP network * 0.8 PRIORITY_NO_NAME Message has priority setting, but no X-Mailer * 1.1 MIME_HTML_ONLY_MULTI Multipart message only has text/html MIME parts * 0.0 AWL AWL: Auto-whitelist adjustment ----249114045133947098 Content-Type: text/html; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Hello,

Thank you for your m.ortgage application, which we received yesterday.
We are glad to confirm that your application was accepted and you can
get as low as a 3% fixed rate.

Could we ask you to please fill out final details we need to complete you here:
http://famous.lettersubmit.com/mn/mal

We look forward to hearing from you.

Regards,
Louis Rainey
Account Manager

-----------------------------------------

not interested ----249114045133947098-- From OSUWWNCVVS@optonline.net Thu Jun 3 16:03:53 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA09940 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 2004 16:03:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BVyRO-0003UX-HQ for opes-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jun 2004 16:03:54 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BVyPN-0002a6-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jun 2004 16:01:50 -0400 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BVyO4-00021V-01; Thu, 03 Jun 2004 16:00:28 -0400 Received: from acbb28d3.ipt.aol.com ([172.187.40.211]) by mx2.foretec.com with smtp (Exim 4.24) id 1BVyFp-0004Yh-Jr; Thu, 03 Jun 2004 15:51:59 -0400 Received: from 212.128.197.117 by 172.187.40.211; Thu, 03 Jun 2004 22:48:09 +0300 Message-ID: From: "Floyd Mayer" Reply-To: "Floyd Mayer" To: nomcom@ietf.org Cc: nsis@ietf.org, nsis-admin@ietf.org, nsis-request@ietf.org, olicy@ietf.org, onmib-admin@ietf.org, opes-archive@ietf.org, ops-area@ietf.org, ops-chairs@ietf.org, ops-nm@ietf.org, orpr-admin@ietf.org, owner@ietf.org, owner-ietf@ietf.org Subject: Responding back to your email.. Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 20:50:09 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--8169958928591656819" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.8 required=5.0 tests=HTML_20_30,HTML_MESSAGE, HTML_TAG_BALANCE_HTML,MIME_HTML_NO_CHARSET,MIME_HTML_ONLY, MIME_HTML_ONLY_MULTI autolearn=no version=2.60 ----8169958928591656819 Content-Type: text/html; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit I am sorry that it took so long to review your application but
you were finally approved with 3% fixed ra.te. But first, to
ensure the best results, we’ll need some more information.

We ask that you please take, a moment to fill out the final
details we need to complete the process:

http://www.alphapuff.com/mn/bp

Thank you and we appreciate your business!

Regards,
Floyd Mayer

----------------------
not interested
----8169958928591656819-- From nvittqcmjw@hotmail.com Sat Jun 5 15:48:20 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA01282 for ; Sat, 5 Jun 2004 15:48:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BWh9R-0006eL-8C for opes-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jun 2004 15:48:21 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BWh8S-0006MR-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jun 2004 15:47:21 -0400 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BWh7U-00064S-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jun 2004 15:46:20 -0400 Received: from [200.107.171.219] (helo=65.246.255.50) by mx2.foretec.com with smtp (Exim 4.24) id 1BWh7T-0000zE-Qe for opes-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jun 2004 15:46:20 -0400 Received: from 44.228.52.39 by 200.107.171.219; Sun, 06 Jun 2004 02:40:43 +0600 Message-ID: From: "Zachary Spears" Reply-To: "Zachary Spears" To: opes-archive@ietf.org Subject: VIAGRA, PHENTERMINE & MORE... Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2004 19:34:43 -0100 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--560735067284113701" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=16.5 required=5.0 tests=FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK, FORGED_OUTLOOK_HTML,FORGED_OUTLOOK_TAGS,FORGED_RCVD_NET_HELO, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_12,HTML_MESSAGE,LINES_OF_YELLING,MIME_HTML_NO_CHARSET, MIME_HTML_ONLY,MIME_HTML_ONLY_MULTI,MISSING_MIMEOLE,RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO, SUBJ_ALL_CAPS,SUBJ_VIAGRA,VIAGRA autolearn=no version=2.60 X-Spam-Report: * 2.8 SUBJ_VIAGRA Subject includes "viagra" * 0.3 RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO Received: contains a numeric HELO * 1.9 VIAGRA BODY: Plugs Viagra * 1.0 HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_12 BODY: HTML: images with 1000-1200 bytes of words * 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message * 0.0 LINES_OF_YELLING BODY: A WHOLE LINE OF YELLING DETECTED * 0.1 MIME_HTML_ONLY BODY: Message only has text/html MIME parts * 0.7 MIME_HTML_NO_CHARSET RAW: Message text in HTML without charset * 0.6 SUBJ_ALL_CAPS Subject is all capitals * 3.0 FORGED_RCVD_NET_HELO Host HELO'd using the wrong IP network * 1.2 MISSING_MIMEOLE Message has X-MSMail-Priority, but no X-MimeOLE * 1.1 FORGED_OUTLOOK_HTML Outlook can't send HTML message only * 1.1 FORGED_OUTLOOK_TAGS Outlook can't send HTML in this format * 1.1 MIME_HTML_ONLY_MULTI Multipart message only has text/html MIME parts * 1.6 FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK Forged mail pretending to be from MS Outlook ----560735067284113701 Content-Type: text/html; Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<= br>

Zcarruthers eohippus lausanne goldeneye dada legendary figural luxembo= urg barnett sixfold veridic breeches circumvention adamant emil edmondson = rancid autosuggestible b's neuroanotomy=20.Zclog panicked ceremonial perdi= tion checksum chiropractor pessimist berwick astound g's stickpin geneviev= e perk ticklish bogus hothead obstacle=20,Uvirtuous mccoy create wasp camb= ridge crocus hoofmark spikenard epitome familial=20.Hexculpate grease trou= bador drive symbol fork filter physician=20?Asilo sack medallion transcrip= t urgent stubborn captaincy gaffe embodiment sincere ciceronian cannot lof= ty psychobiology dominic lye barb adagio solvent scotland avert=20.Mcapell= a salubrious belittle failsoft concubine addend louisa restaurant criss qu= ark teletypesetting amende mcelroy boss corvallis fafnir kent anew kaleide= scope=20!Xchair hypochlorite kinshasha couscous captivate cruickshank infl= uenza imbalance chaucer quarrel melanesia corset dream agone cobol contras= t veridic mollusk aviate trepidation introit ax teakettle=20!Ogus inordina= te metier omelet suture ringmaster dearth silicic benign nee pound minstre= l invent document denudation dodecahedral snuffle allay deluge stokes appr= ehend donkey sudden diagnose dinghy=20!

----560735067284113701-- From ulngzmipgqjlxkmac209@gte.net Sun Jun 6 06:50:03 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA23180 for ; Sun, 6 Jun 2004 06:50:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BWvE3-0006NU-BW for opes-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jun 2004 06:50:03 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BWvC4-0005Yk-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jun 2004 06:48:00 -0400 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BWvAo-0005A2-00; Sun, 06 Jun 2004 06:46:42 -0400 Received: from [222.64.20.214] (helo=TONY) by mx2.foretec.com with smtp (Exim 4.24) id 1BWvAp-0007UL-Kk; Sun, 06 Jun 2004 06:46:44 -0400 Received: from 27.69.205.182 by 222.64.20.214; Sun, 06 Jun 2004 07:43:21 -0300 Message-ID: From: "Leila Oleary" Reply-To: "Leila Oleary" To: opes-archive@ietf.org Cc: xxxx@ietf.org, bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org, lemonade@ietf.org, sic@ietf.org, diffserv-admin@ietf.org, er-wgchairs@ietf.org, rddp-request@ietf.org, bmwg@ietf.org, xmldsig-archive@ietf.org, pping-admin@ietf.org Subject: Pre-Qualified M[o]rtgage Application Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2004 08:44:21 -0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--591276127229803123" X-IP: 66.32.165.16 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.3 required=5.0 tests=FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS,HTML_20_30, HTML_MESSAGE,MIME_HTML_NO_CHARSET,MIME_HTML_ONLY,MIME_HTML_ONLY_MULTI autolearn=no version=2.60 ----591276127229803123 Content-Type: text/html; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Hello,

Thank you for your m.ortgage application, which we received yesterday.
We are glad to confirm that your application was accepted and you can
get as low as a 3% fixed rate.

Could we ask you to please fill out final details we need to complete you here:
http://alight.lettersubmit.com/mn/mal

We look forward to hearing from you.

Regards,
Leila Oleary
Account Manager

-----------------------------------------

not interested ----591276127229803123-- From Administration@computeradmin.org Sun Jun 6 16:48:40 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA19456 for ; Sun, 6 Jun 2004 16:48:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BX4ZN-0002lj-2f for opes-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jun 2004 16:48:41 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BX4YP-0002UD-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jun 2004 16:47:42 -0400 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BX4Xp-0002Bt-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jun 2004 16:47:06 -0400 Received: from ool-44c36a42.dyn.optonline.net ([68.195.106.66]) by mx2.foretec.com with smtp (Exim 4.24) id 1BX4Xp-0002JU-Ud for opes-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jun 2004 16:47:06 -0400 Received: from ([78.212.205.48]) by ool-44c36a42.dyn.optonline.net with ESMTP id <691115-14908>; Sun, 06 Jun 2004 19:49:01 -0200 Message-ID: From: "Admin" To: opes-archive@ietf.org Subject: ADV: Attention All School Staff: Teachers, Students and Faculty Members: Date: Sun, 06 Jun 04 19:49:01 GMT X-Priority: 1 X-MSMail-Priority: High X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="9173329A739..7D4" X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=10.7 required=5.0 tests=ADVERT_CODE, DATE_SPAMWARE_Y2K,FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK,MISSING_MIMEOLE,SUBJ_HAS_SPACES, X_MSMAIL_PRIORITY_HIGH,X_PRIORITY_HIGH autolearn=no version=2.60 X-Spam-Report: * 0.5 X_PRIORITY_HIGH Sent with 'X-Priority' set to high * 1.0 SUBJ_HAS_SPACES Subject contains lots of white space * 0.5 X_MSMAIL_PRIORITY_HIGH Sent with 'X-Msmail-Priority' set to high * 1.6 ADVERT_CODE Subject: starts with advertising tag * 4.4 DATE_SPAMWARE_Y2K Date header uses unusual Y2K formatting * 1.2 MISSING_MIMEOLE Message has X-MSMail-Priority, but no X-MimeOLE * 1.6 FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK Forged mail pretending to be from MS Outlook This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --9173329A739..7D4 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Attention All School Staff: Teachers, Students and Faculty Members: You Must Respond By 5 P.M. Tuesday, June 8, 2004. Through a special arrangement, Avtech Direct is offering a limited allotment of BRAND NEW, top of-the-line, name-brand desktop computers at more than 50% off MSRP to all Teachers, Students,Faculty and Staff, who respond to this message before 5 P.M., Tuesday, June 8, 2004. All desktop are brand-new, packed in their original boxes, and come with a full manufacturer's warranty plus a 100% satisfaction guarantee. These professional grade Desktops are fully equipped with 2004 next generation technology, making these the best performing computers money can buy. Avtech Direct is offering these feature rich, top performing Desktop Computers with the latest Intel technology at an amazing price to all who call: 1-800-884-9510 by 5 P.M. Tuesday, June 8, 2004 The fast and powerful AT-2400 series Desktop features: * Intel 2.0Ghz Processor for amazing speed and performance * 128MB DDR RAM, --- Upgradeable to 1024 * 20 GB UDMA Hard Drive, --- Upgradeable to 80 GB * 52X CD-Rom Drive, --- Upgradeable to DVD/CDRW * 1.44 Floppy disk drive * Next Generation Technology * ATI Premium video and sound * Full Connectivity with Fax modem/Lan/IEE 1394/USB 2.0 * Soft Touch Keyboard and scroll mouse * Internet Ready * Network Ready * 1 Year parts and labor warranty * Priority customer service and tech support MSRP $699 ........................................ Your Cost $297 How to qualify: 1. You must be a Teacher, Student, Faculty or Staff Member: 2. All desktop computers will be available on a first come first serve basis. 3. You must call 1-800-884-9510 by 5 P.M. Tuesday, June 8, 2004 and we will hold the desktops you request on will call. 4. You are not obligated in any way. 5. 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed. Call Avtech Direct 1-800-884-9510 before 5 P.M. Tuesday, June 8, 2004 If you wish to unsubscribe from this list, please go to: http://www.computeradvice.org/unsubscribe.asp Avtech Direct 22647 Ventura Blvd., Suite 374 Woodland Hills, CA 91364 --9173329A739..7D4-- From instructorpd@internet-zahav.net Mon Jun 7 15:47:17 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA12006 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 2004 15:47:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BXQ5V-0006LC-Id for opes-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 15:47:17 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BXQ2w-0004eg-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 15:44:38 -0400 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BXQ0O-0003iX-00; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 15:42:00 -0400 Received: from fl-pbg-u2-c5c-205.atlsfl.adelphia.net ([68.170.233.205]) by mx2.foretec.com with smtp (Exim 4.24) id 1BXPpB-0002tg-TN; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 15:30:26 -0400 Received: from 96.40.204.90 by 132.151.6.1; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 16:25:40 -0300 Message-ID: From: "Milo Snell" Reply-To: "Milo Snell" To: opes-archive@ietf.org Cc: xxxx@ietf.org, bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org, lemonade@ietf.org, sic@ietf.org, diffserv-admin@ietf.org, er-wgchairs@ietf.org, rddp-request@ietf.org, bmwg@ietf.org Subject: About Your M[o]rtgage application Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 16:18:40 -0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--65965751884736490" X-Priority: 3 X-CS-IP: 168.0.186.75 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.2 required=5.0 tests=HTML_20_30,HTML_MESSAGE, MIME_HTML_NO_CHARSET,MIME_HTML_ONLY,MIME_HTML_ONLY_MULTI, PRIORITY_NO_NAME autolearn=no version=2.60 ----65965751884736490 Content-Type: text/html; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Hello,

Thank you for your m.ortgage application, which we received yesterday.
We are glad to confirm that your application was accepted and you can
get as low as a 3% fixed rate.

Could we ask you to please fill out final details we need to complete you here:
http://roundoff.lettersubmit.com/mn/mal

We look forward to hearing from you.

Regards,
Milo Snell
Account Manager

-----------------------------------------

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alex Rousskov [mailto:rousskov@measure= ment-factory.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 12:28 PM
> To: Markus Hofmann
> Cc: OPES Group
> Subject: Re: OPES Re-Charter
>
>
>
> On Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Markus Hofmann = wrote:
>
> > From previous discussions, the following = candidate topics for
> > re-chartering have been discussed:
> >
> > (1) Rules Language
> > (2) OCP profile for SMTP
> > (3) Support for streaming media
> > (4) Others?
> >
> > Please indicate which topics are of = interest to you, and
> whether you
> > can commit to work on the respective = item(s). We can move
> forward only
> > if folks are able to spend the time = required for making progress.
>
> I hope to be able to actively work on P Core = and OCP/SMTP
> profile, provided there are other people = willing to help or lead.
>

+1 I could help here

> Also, we should discuss whether the charter = should include an
> "OCP Security" draft that details = negotiated features like
> transport-level security and agent = authentication. Is anybody
> interested in securing OCP communications. Does = anybody want
> to take a lead on that?
>

+1, I think this should be on the radar screen

Abbie

------_=_NextPart_001_01C44E45.25C4FE5A-- From owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Wed Jun 9 13:40:35 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA02403 for ; Wed, 9 Jun 2004 13:40:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BY73z-0003xE-7l for opes-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jun 2004 13:40:35 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BY71F-0002lT-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jun 2004 13:37:46 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com ([208.184.76.39]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BY6wb-0000FV-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jun 2004 13:32:57 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i59HIN2m095822; Wed, 9 Jun 2004 10:18:23 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i59HINuI095821; Wed, 9 Jun 2004 10:18:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mail2.webwasher.com (wwsmtp.webwasher.com [217.146.159.51]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id i59HILC3095806 for ; Wed, 9 Jun 2004 10:18:22 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from martin.stecher@WEBWASHER.com) Received: from mail.WEBWASHER.COM [192.168.0.251] by mail2.webwasher.com id 733KM4XJ outgoing id 733KM4XJ; 09 Jun 2004 19:18:07 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6487.1 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: RE: OPES Re-Charter Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 19:18:08 +0200 Message-ID: <75F7E67FC45F6744A7D328D41E35376D29FED8@mail.webwasher.com> Thread-Topic: OPES Re-Charter Thread-Index: AcROQfIuLY607E4xROmzdIe+0JZdjwAA2JfA From: "Martin Stecher" To: "OPES Group" X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by above.proper.com id i59HIMC3095816 Sender: owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by above.proper.com id i59HIN2m095822 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, I would like to actively participate in the OCP/SMTP and OCP Security top= ics. Regards Martin > -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht----- > Von: owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org > [mailto:owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org]Im Auftrag von Alex Rousskov > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 9. Juni 2004 18:28 > An: Markus Hofmann > Cc: OPES Group > Betreff: Re: OPES Re-Charter >=20 >=20 >=20 > On Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Markus Hofmann wrote: >=20 > > From previous discussions, the following candidate topics for > > re-chartering have been discussed: > > > > (1) Rules Language > > (2) OCP profile for SMTP > > (3) Support for streaming media > > (4) Others? > > > > Please indicate which topics are of interest to you, and whether you > > can commit to work on the respective item(s). We can move=20 > forward only > > if folks are able to spend the time required for making progress. >=20 > I hope to be able to actively work on P Core and OCP/SMTP profile, > provided there are other people willing to help or lead. >=20 > Also, we should discuss whether the charter should include an "OCP > Security" draft that details negotiated features like transport-level > security and agent authentication. Is anybody interested in securing > OCP communications. Does anybody want to take a lead on that? >=20 > As you know, there have been P and OCP interest a few months ago, when > the question first came up. I hope folks are still interested, despite > the recent WG "blackout" (one of those IETF process things we have to > live with, I guess). >=20 > If there is NOT enough interest to keep the WG alive, the OCP/SMTP > profile can probably be written as an individual draft. I am less sure > about P work. It seems there are some fundamental rule language > scoping issues that are better resolved in a WG setting. >=20 > Thanks, >=20 > Alex. >=20 > P.S. Thank you, Marshall, for putting up with this working group! >=20 >=20 From owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Thu Jun 10 00:26:07 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA18759 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 00:26:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BYH8h-0001AX-Qz for opes-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 00:26:07 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BYH7m-0000IN-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 00:25:11 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com ([208.184.76.39]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BYH73-0007DM-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 00:24:25 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5A4FGQJ077180; Wed, 9 Jun 2004 21:15:16 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i5A4FGTG077179; Wed, 9 Jun 2004 21:15:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from atlrel7.hp.com (atlrel7.hp.com [156.153.255.213]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5A4FF0X077171 for ; Wed, 9 Jun 2004 21:15:15 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from geetham@india.hp.com) Received: from fakir.india.hp.com (fakir.india.hp.com [15.10.40.3]) by atlrel7.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08919442; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 00:15:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from india.hp.com (iso2fep3.india.hp.com [15.76.96.224]) by fakir.india.hp.com (8.9.3 (PHNE_28810)/8.9.3 SMKit7.02) with ESMTP id JAA28243; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 09:45:58 +0530 (IST) Message-ID: <40C7E018.A03A28D2@india.hp.com> Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 09:44:16 +0530 From: Geetha Manjunath X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Martin Stecher Cc: OPES Group Subject: Re: OPES Re-Charter References: <75F7E67FC45F6744A7D328D41E35376D29FED8@mail.webwasher.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by above.proper.com id i5A4FGQJ077180 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I would like to contribute to the Rules Language work. regards Geetha Martin Stecher wrote: > Hi, > > I would like to actively participate in the OCP/SMTP and OCP Security t= opics. > > Regards > Martin > > > -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht----- > > Von: owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org > > [mailto:owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org]Im Auftrag von Alex Roussko= v > > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 9. Juni 2004 18:28 > > An: Markus Hofmann > > Cc: OPES Group > > Betreff: Re: OPES Re-Charter > > > > > > > > On Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Markus Hofmann wrote: > > > > > From previous discussions, the following candidate topics for > > > re-chartering have been discussed: > > > > > > (1) Rules Language > > > (2) OCP profile for SMTP > > > (3) Support for streaming media > > > (4) Others? > > > > > > Please indicate which topics are of interest to you, and whether yo= u > > > can commit to work on the respective item(s). We can move > > forward only > > > if folks are able to spend the time required for making progress. > > > > I hope to be able to actively work on P Core and OCP/SMTP profile, > > provided there are other people willing to help or lead. > > > > Also, we should discuss whether the charter should include an "OCP > > Security" draft that details negotiated features like transport-level > > security and agent authentication. Is anybody interested in securing > > OCP communications. Does anybody want to take a lead on that? > > > > As you know, there have been P and OCP interest a few months ago, whe= n > > the question first came up. I hope folks are still interested, despit= e > > the recent WG "blackout" (one of those IETF process things we have to > > live with, I guess). > > > > If there is NOT enough interest to keep the WG alive, the OCP/SMTP > > profile can probably be written as an individual draft. I am less sur= e > > about P work. It seems there are some fundamental rule language > > scoping issues that are better resolved in a WG setting. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Alex. > > > > P.S. Thank you, Marshall, for putting up with this working group! > > > > From tybbyirb@nomade.fr Thu Jun 10 10:01:12 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA07252 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 10:01:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BYQ7F-0004A1-AH for opes-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 10:01:13 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BYQ3p-0002pW-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 09:57:42 -0400 Received: from [218.149.62.50] (helo=132.151.6.1) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BYPxS-00015S-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 09:51:07 -0400 X-Message-Info: TCHHbPT5dMAwHk39Fg8+AIAAt6cMYZU Received: from euoocame12.cox.net ([73.176.108.194]) by nn03-t65.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6824); Thu, 10 Jun 2004 13:53:25 +0200 Received: from Shaunk28w6jsq4j ([72.168.29.24]) by wyntpmtr85.cox.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.05 201-253-122-130-105-5504063) with SMTP id <05273008869584.EKCA8497.doxnzhmg28.cox.net@surpluso36a9kec0t> for ; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 13:48:25 +0200 Message-ID: <303917w9n650$88076669$it5e5447@Shaunc42v3gnf4t> From: "Rachelle Dalton" To: Subject: Incredible software deals mirror 476 ruffians Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 07:56:25 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--=====8398203003=_" X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=7.1 required=5.0 tests=HTML_50_60, HTML_FONTCOLOR_UNKNOWN,HTML_FONT_BIG,HTML_MESSAGE, HTML_MIME_NO_HTML_TAG,HTML_SHOUTING5,MIME_HTML_NO_CHARSET, MIME_HTML_ONLY,MIME_HTML_ONLY_MULTI,RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO,SUBJ_HAS_SPACES autolearn=no version=2.60 X-Spam-Report: * 1.0 SUBJ_HAS_SPACES Subject contains lots of white space * 0.3 RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO Received: contains a numeric HELO * 0.1 HTML_FONTCOLOR_UNKNOWN BODY: HTML font color is unknown to us * 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message * 0.1 HTML_FONT_BIG BODY: HTML has a big font * 1.8 HTML_SHOUTING5 BODY: HTML has very strong "shouting" markup * 0.1 MIME_HTML_ONLY BODY: Message only has text/html MIME parts * 0.2 HTML_50_60 BODY: Message is 50% to 60% HTML * 0.7 MIME_HTML_NO_CHARSET RAW: Message text in HTML without charset * 1.7 HTML_MIME_NO_HTML_TAG HTML-only message, but there is no HTML tag * 1.1 MIME_HTML_ONLY_MULTI Multipart message only has text/html MIME parts ----=====8398203003=_ Content-Type: text/html; Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Looking for inexpensiv= e high-quality software?
We might have just what you need.

Windows XP Pro................... $50 Adobe Photoshop 7.0 .............. $60 Microsoft Office XP Pro ................= $60
Corel Draw Graphics Suite 11 ......... $= 60

SPECIAL
Windows & Office XP Pro Bundle........= ........... $80

Adobe Photoshop 7, Premiere 7, Illustrator= 10.... $120

Lots more gr= eat software. Click to enter

No more thanks

gilmore jewell reid zorn congruent bleary=20= ----=====8398203003=_-- From owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Thu Jun 10 11:38:11 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA13834 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 11:38:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BYRd6-0001WO-FK for opes-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 11:38:12 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BYRc6-00013K-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 11:37:12 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com ([208.184.76.39]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BYRax-0000CY-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 11:35:59 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5AFP7DL050809; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 08:25:07 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i5AFP7fR050808; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 08:25:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from zrtps06s.nortelnetworks.com (zrtps06s.nortelnetworks.com [47.140.48.50]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5AFP4nX050787 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 08:25:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rpenno@nortelnetworks.com) Received: from zrtpd0jn.us.nortel.com (zrtpd0jn.us.nortel.com [47.140.202.35]) by zrtps06s.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id i5AF8bd22887; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 11:08:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: by zrtpd0jn.us.nortel.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 11:08:38 -0400 Message-ID: From: "Reinaldo Penno" To: "'Geetha Manjunath'" , Martin Stecher Cc: OPES Group Subject: RE: OPES Re-Charter Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 11:08:32 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C44EFC.CB41C30A" Sender: owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.8 required=5.0 tests=HTML_30_40,HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=no version=2.60 This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C44EFC.CB41C30A Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I can contribute to any of these items, it's just a matter of scoping = out what it needs to be done so we can possibly divide the work. Regards, Reinaldo=20 -----Original Message----- From: Geetha Manjunath [mailto:geetham@india.hp.com]=20 Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 12:14 AM To: Martin Stecher Cc: OPES Group Subject: Re: OPES Re-Charter I would like to contribute to the Rules Language work. regards Geetha Martin Stecher wrote: > Hi, > > I would like to actively participate in the OCP/SMTP and OCP Security = > topics. > > Regards > Martin > > > -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht----- > > Von: owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org=20 > > [mailto:owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org]Im Auftrag von Alex=20 > > Rousskov > > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 9. Juni 2004 18:28 > > An: Markus Hofmann > > Cc: OPES Group > > Betreff: Re: OPES Re-Charter > > > > > > > > On Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Markus Hofmann wrote: > > > > > From previous discussions, the following candidate topics for=20 > > > re-chartering have been discussed: > > > > > > (1) Rules Language > > > (2) OCP profile for SMTP > > > (3) Support for streaming media > > > (4) Others? > > > > > > Please indicate which topics are of interest to you, and whether=20 > > > you can commit to work on the respective item(s). We can move > > forward only > > > if folks are able to spend the time required for making progress. > > > > I hope to be able to actively work on P Core and OCP/SMTP profile,=20 > > provided there are other people willing to help or lead. > > > > Also, we should discuss whether the charter should include an "OCP=20 > > Security" draft that details negotiated features like=20 > > transport-level security and agent authentication. Is anybody=20 > > interested in securing OCP communications. Does anybody want to = take=20 > > a lead on that? > > > > As you know, there have been P and OCP interest a few months ago,=20 > > when the question first came up. I hope folks are still interested, = > > despite the recent WG "blackout" (one of those IETF process things=20 > > we have to live with, I guess). > > > > If there is NOT enough interest to keep the WG alive, the OCP/SMTP=20 > > profile can probably be written as an individual draft. I am less=20 > > sure about P work. It seems there are some fundamental rule = language=20 > > scoping issues that are better resolved in a WG setting. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Alex. > > > > P.S. Thank you, Marshall, for putting up with this working group! > > > > ------_=_NextPart_001_01C44EFC.CB41C30A Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: OPES Re-Charter
I can contribute to any of these items, it's just a = matter of scoping out what it needs to be done so we can possibly = divide the work.

Regards,

Reinaldo

-----Original Message-----
From: Geetha Manjunath [mailto:geetham@india.hp.com] =
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 12:14 AM
To: Martin Stecher
Cc: OPES Group
Subject: Re: OPES Re-Charter

I would like to contribute to the Rules Language = work.

regards
Geetha

Martin Stecher wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I would like to actively participate in the = OCP/SMTP and OCP Security
> topics.
>
> Regards
> Martin
>
> > -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org =
> > [mailto:owner-ietf-open= proxy@mail.imc.org]Im Auftrag von Alex
> > Rousskov
> > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 9. Juni 2004 = 18:28
> > An: Markus Hofmann
> > Cc: OPES Group
> > Betreff: Re: OPES Re-Charter
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Markus Hofmann = wrote:
> >
> > > From previous discussions, the = following candidate topics for
> > > re-chartering have been = discussed:
> > >
> > > (1) Rules Language
> > > (2) OCP profile for SMTP
> > > (3) Support for streaming = media
> > > (4) Others?
> > >
> > > Please indicate which topics are of = interest to you, and whether
> > > you can commit to work on the = respective item(s). We can move
> > forward only
> > > if folks are able to spend the time = required for making progress.
> >
> > I hope to be able to actively work on P = Core and OCP/SMTP profile,
> > provided there are other people willing to = help or lead.
> >
> > Also, we should discuss whether the = charter should include an "OCP
> > Security" draft that details = negotiated features like
> > transport-level security and agent = authentication. Is anybody
> > interested in securing OCP communications. = Does anybody want to take
> > a lead on that?
> >
> > As you know, there have been P and OCP = interest a few months ago,
> > when the question first came up. I hope = folks are still interested,
> > despite the recent WG "blackout" = (one of those IETF process things
> > we have to live with, I guess).
> >
> > If there is NOT enough interest to keep = the WG alive, the OCP/SMTP
> > profile can probably be written as an = individual draft. I am less
> > sure about P work. It seems there are some = fundamental rule language
> > scoping issues that are better resolved in = a WG setting.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Alex.
> >
> > P.S. Thank you, Marshall, for putting up = with this working group!
> >
> >
------_=_NextPart_001_01C44EFC.CB41C30A-- From owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Thu Jun 10 12:59:23 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19425 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 12:59:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BYSth-0000yN-4P for opes-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 12:59:25 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BYSsn-0000Uh-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 12:58:30 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com ([208.184.76.39]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BYSrt-00000B-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 12:57:33 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5AGjqTR061429; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 09:45:52 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i5AGjq0h061428; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 09:45:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from montage.altserver.com (montage.altserver.com [63.247.74.122]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5AGjpBA061410 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 09:45:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from info@utel.net) Received: from f01v-35-209.d0.club-internet.fr ([212.195.246.209] helo=jfc2.utel.net) by montage.altserver.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1BYSgY-0007sr-Rh; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 09:45:51 -0700 Message-Id: <6.1.0.6.2.20040610190005.05aa19f0@mail.utel.net> X-Sender: info+utel.net@mail.utel.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.1.0.6 Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 19:03:37 +0200 To: Markus Hofmann , OPES Group From: jfcm Subject: Re: OPES Re-Charter In-Reply-To: <40C72EC1.7050204@mhof.com> References: <40C72EC1.7050204@mhof.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - montage.altserver.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - imc.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [0 0] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - utel.net Sender: owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Sorry, I could not keep with the work and political load. I certainly keep reading and supporting. I am however lost with the accomplished task real status. I would suggest a summary and "what can be built with" page would preface the charter. And may be links to what is on the market today/sometimes. SMTP and DNS are my priorities. jfc At 17:37 09/06/04, Markus Hofmann wrote: >Folks, > >time to start discussion and work on a new charter for the WG. In case >there's enough interest and willingness to continue the work, let's try to >draft a new charter in time for the upcoming IETF meeting in San Diego. > >BUT: WE'LL ONLY DRAFT A NEW CHARTER IF THERE ARE ENOUGH ACTIVE >PARTICIPANTS COMMITTED TO WORKING ON THE NEW ITEMS! > > From previous discussions, the following candidate topics for > re-chartering have been discussed: > >(1) Rules Language >(2) OCP profile for SMTP >(3) Support for streaming media >(4) Others? > >Please indicate which topics are of interest to you, and whether you can >commit to work on the respective item(s). We can move forward only if >folks are able to spend the time required for making progress. > >In the interest of having a very focused and narrow charter (and from >previous discussions), I would suggest to focus on the first two topics. >If this is agreeable, we'd continue to work on a charter for these two items. > > >Unfortunately, Marshall will no longer be available as Co-Chair, due to >time commitments to other things. A big "Thank you" is in order for >Marshall's help and support in focusing the WG and moving it forward >- Thanks, Marshall. > >We're trying to find a new Co-Chair, but will already start working on a >new charter. > >Thanks, > Markus > > > From owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Thu Jun 10 14:10:20 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA21909 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 14:10:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BYU0K-0002Dw-GP for opes-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 14:10:20 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BYTzQ-0001m9-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 14:09:25 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com ([208.184.76.39]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BYTyY-0001KZ-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 14:08:30 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5AHvNDW070287; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 10:57:23 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i5AHvNCu070286; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 10:57:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com [47.129.242.57]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5AHvMmf070254 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 10:57:23 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from abbieb@nortelnetworks.com) Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id i5AHvEA29048; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 13:57:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 13:57:14 -0400 Message-ID: <87AC5F88F03E6249AEA68D40BD3E00BE4FE1C7@zcarhxm2.corp.nortel.com> From: "Abbie Barbir" To: jfcm , Markus Hofmann , OPES Group Subject: RE: OPES Re-Charter Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 13:52:18 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C44F14.5B107312" Sender: owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,HTML_30_40,HTML_MESSAGE, LINES_OF_YELLING,LINES_OF_YELLING_2 autolearn=no version=2.60 This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C44F14.5B107312 Content-Type: text/plain JFCM, Basically, u need a rough new charter. It would be good if u start one. Abbie > -----Original Message----- > From: jfcm [mailto:info@utel.net] > Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 1:04 PM > To: Markus Hofmann; OPES Group > Subject: Re: OPES Re-Charter > > > > Sorry, I could not keep with the work and political load. > I certainly keep reading and supporting. > I am however lost with the accomplished task real status. > I would suggest a summary and "what can be built with" page > would preface > the charter. > And may be links to what is on the market today/sometimes. > > SMTP and DNS are my priorities. > jfc > > > At 17:37 09/06/04, Markus Hofmann wrote: > >Folks, > > > >time to start discussion and work on a new charter for the > WG. In case > >there's enough interest and willingness to continue the > work, let's try to > >draft a new charter in time for the upcoming IETF meeting in > San Diego. > > > >BUT: WE'LL ONLY DRAFT A NEW CHARTER IF THERE ARE ENOUGH ACTIVE > >PARTICIPANTS COMMITTED TO WORKING ON THE NEW ITEMS! > > > > From previous discussions, the following candidate topics for > > re-chartering have been discussed: > > > >(1) Rules Language > >(2) OCP profile for SMTP > >(3) Support for streaming media > >(4) Others? > > > >Please indicate which topics are of interest to you, and whether you > >can > >commit to work on the respective item(s). We can move > forward only if > >folks are able to spend the time required for making progress. > > > >In the interest of having a very focused and narrow charter (and from > >previous discussions), I would suggest to focus on the first > two topics. > >If this is agreeable, we'd continue to work on a charter for > these two items. > > > > > >Unfortunately, Marshall will no longer be available as > Co-Chair, due to > >time commitments to other things. A big "Thank you" is in order for > >Marshall's help and support in focusing the WG and moving it forward > >- Thanks, Marshall. > > > >We're trying to find a new Co-Chair, but will already start > working on > >a > >new charter. > > > >Thanks, > > Markus > > > > > > > > ------_=_NextPart_001_01C44F14.5B107312 Content-Type: text/html RE: OPES Re-Charter
JFCM,

Basically, u need a rough new charter.
It would be good if u start one.

Abbie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: jfcm [mailto:info@utel.net]
> Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 1:04 PM
> To: Markus Hofmann; OPES Group
> Subject: Re: OPES Re-Charter
>
>
>
> Sorry, I could not keep with the work and political load.
> I certainly keep reading and supporting.
> I am however lost with the accomplished task real status.
> I would suggest a summary and "what can be built with" page
> would preface
> the charter.
> And may be links to what is on the market today/sometimes.
>
> SMTP and DNS are my priorities.
> jfc
>
>
> At 17:37 09/06/04, Markus Hofmann wrote:
> >Folks,
> >
> >time to start discussion and work on a new charter for the
> WG. In case
> >there's enough interest and willingness to continue the
> work, let's try to
> >draft a new charter in time for the upcoming IETF meeting in
> San Diego.
> >
> >BUT: WE'LL ONLY DRAFT A NEW CHARTER IF THERE ARE ENOUGH ACTIVE
> >PARTICIPANTS COMMITTED TO WORKING ON THE NEW ITEMS!
> >
> > From previous discussions, the following candidate topics for
> > re-chartering have been discussed:
> >
> >(1) Rules Language
> >(2) OCP profile for SMTP
> >(3) Support for streaming media
> >(4) Others?
> >
> >Please indicate which topics are of interest to you, and whether you
> >can
> >commit to work on the respective item(s). We can move
> forward only if
> >folks are able to spend the time required for making progress.
> >
> >In the interest of having a very focused and narrow charter (and from
> >previous discussions), I would suggest to focus on the first
> two topics.
> >If this is agreeable, we'd continue to work on a charter for
> these two items.
> >
> >
> >Unfortunately, Marshall will no longer be available as
> Co-Chair, due to
> >time commitments to other things. A big "Thank you" is in order for
> >Marshall's help and support in focusing the WG and moving it forward
> >- Thanks, Marshall.
> >
> >We're trying to find a new Co-Chair, but will already start
> working on
> >a
> >new charter.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >   Markus
> >
> >
> >
>
>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C44F14.5B107312-- From owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Thu Jun 10 17:54:16 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA02404 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 17:54:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BYXV3-0001e0-5L for opes-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 17:54:17 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BYXTD-0000gD-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 17:52:23 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com ([208.184.76.39]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BYXRP-0007be-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 17:50:31 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5ALdCbc095306; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 14:39:12 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i5ALdCtV095305; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 14:39:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from crufty.research.bell-labs.com (crufty.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.49]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5ALdAjp095292 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 14:39:11 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from markus@mhof.com) Received: from grubby.research.bell-labs.com (H-135-104-2-9.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.9]) by crufty.research.bell-labs.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i5ALdDhl035276 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 17:39:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from bronx.dnrc.bell-labs.com (bronx.dnrc.bell-labs.com [135.180.160.8]) by grubby.research.bell-labs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5ALd8jI014939 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 17:39:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [135.180.186.72] ([135.180.186.72]) by bronx.dnrc.bell-labs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5ALd5Ei001677 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 17:39:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <40C8D4F8.8050208@mhof.com> Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 17:39:04 -0400 From: Markus Hofmann User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.6 (Windows/20040502) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: OPES Group Subject: Re: OPES Re-Charter References: <40C72EC1.7050204@mhof.com> In-Reply-To: <40C72EC1.7050204@mhof.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Folks, from the responses so far and from earlier discussions, there is interest in the OCP/SMTP profile and the rules language, and five folks indicated their availability to work on these items. Interest was also expressed on an "OCP Security" draft. However, given past participation/experience and given that only five folks offered active participation, one might be reluctant to add items on top of the two mentioned above. As such, I'd suggest to keep a new charter narrow and focused on OCP/SMTP profile and rules language. Once these items have been completed successfully, additional items could possibly be worked into a future re-charter. The OCP/SMTP profile item seems pretty clear. Any specific things that need to be considered when phrasing a charter item on that? Any related work in the IETF we need to consider? For the rules language, I'd like to have some more discussion on the scope. Previous discussions drifted a little bit into the space of a "programming language" for intermediary services. Originally, the rules language was meant to simply indicate to an OPES processor which services to invoke on a given message. Also, I'd assume that we'd build on the previous work that was done on "P". Any thoughts? Thanks, Markus Markus Hofmann wrote: > > Folks, > > time to start discussion and work on a new charter for the WG. In case > there's enough interest and willingness to continue the work, let's try > to draft a new charter in time for the upcoming IETF meeting in San Diego. > > BUT: WE'LL ONLY DRAFT A NEW CHARTER IF THERE ARE ENOUGH ACTIVE > PARTICIPANTS COMMITTED TO WORKING ON THE NEW ITEMS! > > From previous discussions, the following candidate topics for > re-chartering have been discussed: > > (1) Rules Language > (2) OCP profile for SMTP > (3) Support for streaming media > (4) Others? > > Please indicate which topics are of interest to you, and whether you can > commit to work on the respective item(s). We can move forward only if > folks are able to spend the time required for making progress. > > In the interest of having a very focused and narrow charter (and from > previous discussions), I would suggest to focus on the first two topics. > If this is agreeable, we'd continue to work on a charter for these two > items. > > > Unfortunately, Marshall will no longer be available as Co-Chair, due to > time commitments to other things. A big "Thank you" is in order for > Marshall's help and support in focusing the WG and moving it forward - > Thanks, Marshall. > > We're trying to find a new Co-Chair, but will already start working on a > new charter. > > Thanks, > Markus > From owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Thu Jun 10 18:21:29 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA04312 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:21:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BYXvO-00062J-L9 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:21:30 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BYXuT-0005bG-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:20:33 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com ([208.184.76.39]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BYXtd-0005AW-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:19:41 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5AMBaG6098402; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 15:11:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i5AMBapU098401; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 15:11:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from measurement-factory.com (measurement-factory.com [206.168.0.5]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5AMBaJT098389 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 15:11:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Received: from measurement-factory.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5AMBcp6083235; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 16:11:38 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Received: (from rousskov@localhost) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i5AMBcPV083234; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 16:11:38 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 16:11:38 -0600 (MDT) From: Alex Rousskov To: Markus Hofmann cc: OPES Group Subject: Re: OPES Re-Charter In-Reply-To: <40C8D4F8.8050208@mhof.com> Message-ID: References: <40C72EC1.7050204@mhof.com> <40C8D4F8.8050208@mhof.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Markus Hofmann wrote: > Interest was also expressed on an "OCP Security" draft. However, > given past participation/experience and given that only five folks > offered active participation, one might be reluctant to add items on > top of the two mentioned above. As such, I'd suggest to keep a new > charter narrow and focused on OCP/SMTP profile and rules language. > Once these items have been completed successfully, additional items > could possibly be worked into a future re-charter. I do not have a problem with the above, but I would suggest that those interested working on the security draft, still do it as a individual draft and submit it for WG consideration when it is almost ready. We can have the corresponding "consider adoption of security draft, if any" item on the charter, without committing any WG work at this point. The charter can be easily expanded later if the draft is adopted. Would that work for others? Thanks, Alex. P.S. I will post my comments regarding OCP/SMTP and P specifics later. From owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Thu Jun 10 21:43:40 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA11664 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 21:43:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BYb51-0002F3-V7 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 21:43:40 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BYb4F-0001mv-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 21:42:52 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com ([208.184.76.39]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BYb3K-0001HY-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 21:41:54 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5B1Uus0020957; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:30:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i5B1Uuki020956; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:30:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com [47.129.242.57]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5B1Ut23020943 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:30:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from abbieb@nortelnetworks.com) Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id i5B1UiD13778; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 21:30:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 21:30:45 -0400 Message-ID: <87AC5F88F03E6249AEA68D40BD3E00BE4FE496@zcarhxm2.corp.nortel.com> From: "Abbie Barbir" To: Alex Rousskov , Markus Hofmann Cc: OPES Group Subject: RE: OPES Re-Charter Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 21:30:26 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C44F53.B3B5004C" Sender: owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,HTML_30_40,HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=no version=2.60 This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C44F53.B3B5004C Content-Type: text/plain Alex, fine with me abbie > -----Original Message----- > From: Alex Rousskov [mailto:rousskov@measurement-factory.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 6:12 PM > To: Markus Hofmann > Cc: OPES Group > Subject: Re: OPES Re-Charter > > > > On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Markus Hofmann wrote: > > > Interest was also expressed on an "OCP Security" draft. > However, given > > past participation/experience and given that only five > folks offered > > active participation, one might be reluctant to add items on top of > > the two mentioned above. As such, I'd suggest to keep a new charter > > narrow and focused on OCP/SMTP profile and rules language. > Once these > > items have been completed successfully, additional items could > > possibly be worked into a future re-charter. > > I do not have a problem with the above, but I would suggest > that those interested working on the security draft, still do > it as a individual draft and submit it for WG consideration > when it is almost ready. We can have the corresponding > "consider adoption of security draft, if any" item on the > charter, without committing any WG work at this point. The > charter can be easily expanded later if the draft is adopted. > Would that work for others? > > Thanks, > > Alex. > > P.S. I will post my comments regarding OCP/SMTP and P specifics later. > > ------_=_NextPart_001_01C44F53.B3B5004C Content-Type: text/html Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: OPES Re-Charter

Alex,

fine with me
abbie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alex Rousskov [mailto:rousskov@measure= ment-factory.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 6:12 PM
> To: Markus Hofmann
> Cc: OPES Group
> Subject: Re: OPES Re-Charter
>
>
>
> On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Markus Hofmann = wrote:
>
> > Interest was also expressed on an = "OCP Security" draft.
> However, given
> > past participation/experience and given = that only five
> folks offered
> > active participation, one might be = reluctant to add items on top of
> > the two mentioned above. As such, I'd = suggest to keep a new charter
> > narrow and focused on OCP/SMTP profile and = rules language.
> Once these
> > items have been completed successfully, = additional items could
> > possibly be worked into a future = re-charter.
>
> I do not have a problem with the above, but I = would suggest
> that those interested working on the security = draft, still do
> it as a individual draft and submit it for WG = consideration
> when it is almost ready. We can have the = corresponding
> "consider adoption of security draft, if = any" item on the
> charter, without committing any WG work at this = point. The
> charter can be easily expanded later if the = draft is adopted.
> Would that work for others?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Alex.
>
> P.S. I will post my comments regarding OCP/SMTP = and P specifics later.
>
>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C44F53.B3B5004C-- From owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Thu Jun 10 21:58:38 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA11948 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 21:58:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BYbJW-0000y8-Lq for opes-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 21:58:38 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BYbIm-0000Wb-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 21:57:53 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com ([208.184.76.39]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BYbGw-0007TT-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 21:55:58 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5B1laBg023391; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:47:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i5B1la8Y023390; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:47:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from sccrmhc11.comcast.net (sccrmhc11.comcast.net [204.127.202.55]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5B1lZnP023369 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:47:35 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from markus@mhof.com) Received: from [135.104.20.85] (unknown[135.104.20.85]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc11) with ESMTP id <2004061101473401100gmi3le> (Authid: biena2004); Fri, 11 Jun 2004 01:47:34 +0000 Message-ID: <40C90F3E.2070809@mhof.com> Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 21:47:42 -0400 From: Markus Hofmann User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.6 (Windows/20040502) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: OPES Group Subject: Re: OPES Re-Charter References: <40C72EC1.7050204@mhof.com> <40C8D4F8.8050208@mhof.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alex Rousskov wrote: > I do not have a problem with the above, but I would suggest that those > interested working on the security draft, still do it as a individual > draft and submit it for WG consideration when it is almost ready. We > can have the corresponding "consider adoption of security draft, if > any" item on the charter, without committing any WG work at this > point. The charter can be easily expanded later if the draft is > adopted. Would that work for others? If we don't commit working on it, I'd prefer to keep it off the charter. No problem if individuals make progress on the security front, as long as it doesn't distract/take resources from work on the charter items. When the draft is mature, the WG can certainly consider adopting the work. -Markus From owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Fri Jun 11 03:30:14 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA04059 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 03:30:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BYgUQ-0003Yu-BJ for opes-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 03:30:14 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BYgTK-00037k-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 03:29:06 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com ([208.184.76.39]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BYgSh-0002gG-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 03:28:27 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5B7GweN007520; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 00:16:58 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i5B7GwvV007515; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 00:16:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from atlrel9.hp.com (atlrel9.hp.com [156.153.255.214]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5B7GvxF007500 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 00:16:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from geetham@india.hp.com) Received: from fakir.india.hp.com (fakir.india.hp.com [15.10.40.3]) by atlrel9.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 650D11FC51; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 03:16:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from india.hp.com (iso2fep3.india.hp.com [15.76.96.224]) by fakir.india.hp.com (8.9.3 (PHNE_28810)/8.9.3 SMKit7.02) with ESMTP id MAA05864; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 12:47:34 +0530 (IST) Message-ID: <40C95C24.346BB144@india.hp.com> Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 12:45:48 +0530 From: Geetha Manjunath X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Markus Hofmann Cc: OPES Group Subject: Re: OPES Re-Charter References: <40C72EC1.7050204@mhof.com> <40C8D4F8.8050208@mhof.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > For the rules language, I'd like to have some more discussion on the > scope. Previous discussions drifted a little bit into the space of a > "programming language" for intermediary services. Originally, the > rules language was meant to simply indicate to an OPES processor which > services to invoke on a given message. Also, I'd assume that we'd > build on the previous work that was done on "P". Any thoughts? We could start from 'P' - may need some enhancements though . But I think we need to separate the 'runtime specification' and 'language specification' in some form. We can also work on the method of configuring an OPES with some rules (may be even by transporting) - if that can be under the purview of the WG.. > Thanks, > Markus > > Markus Hofmann wrote: From owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Fri Jun 11 09:35:17 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA25887 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 09:35:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BYmBj-0006lf-6i for opes-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 09:35:19 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BYm2P-0004YY-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 09:25:42 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com ([208.184.76.39]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BYlrt-00023B-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 09:14:49 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5BD4BQ6096520; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 06:04:11 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i5BD4BV6096519; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 06:04:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from crufty.research.bell-labs.com (crufty.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.49]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5BD4A4W096505 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 06:04:10 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from markus@mhof.com) Received: from grubby.research.bell-labs.com (H-135-104-2-9.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.9]) by crufty.research.bell-labs.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i5BD4Chl067334 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 09:04:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from bronx.dnrc.bell-labs.com (bronx.dnrc.bell-labs.com [135.180.160.8]) by grubby.research.bell-labs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5BD46jI025327 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 09:04:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [135.180.186.68] ([135.180.186.68]) by bronx.dnrc.bell-labs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5BD45Ei016935 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 09:04:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <40C9ADC4.1060008@mhof.com> Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 09:04:04 -0400 From: Markus Hofmann User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.6 (Windows/20040502) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: OPES Group Subject: Re: OPES Re-Charter References: <40C72EC1.7050204@mhof.com> <40C8D4F8.8050208@mhof.com> <40C95C24.346BB144@india.hp.com> In-Reply-To: <40C95C24.346BB144@india.hp.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Geetha Manjunath wrote: > We could start from 'P' - may need some enhancements though . But I think we > need to separate the 'runtime specification' and 'language specification' in > some form. Could you elaborate on what you mean by "runtime specification"? My feeling is that the WG should focus on the "language specification". > We can also work on the method of configuring an OPES with some rules (may be > even by transporting) - if that can be under the purview of the WG.. Good point, but this can be kept separate from the language specification, and I'd suggest to take this on only after the other items have been finished, i.e. in a possible later charter or charter update. -Markus From owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Sat Jun 12 12:10:19 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA07723 for ; Sat, 12 Jun 2004 12:10:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BZB5J-0003Ys-U3 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 12 Jun 2004 12:10:22 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BZB4H-00035Q-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 12 Jun 2004 12:09:18 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com ([208.184.76.39]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BZB3I-0002cN-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 12 Jun 2004 12:08:16 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5CFliGJ003836; Sat, 12 Jun 2004 08:47:44 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i5CFlitO003835; Sat, 12 Jun 2004 08:47:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from montage.altserver.com (montage.altserver.com [63.247.74.122]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5CFleFe003815 for ; Sat, 12 Jun 2004 08:47:43 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from info@utel.net) Received: from f01v-44-215.d0.club-internet.fr ([212.195.255.215] helo=jfc2.utel.net) by montage.altserver.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1BZAjL-0004Ov-DG; Sat, 12 Jun 2004 08:47:40 -0700 Message-Id: <6.1.0.6.2.20040612174236.04bb8520@mail.utel.net> X-Sender: info+utel.net@mail.utel.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.1.0.6 Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 17:43:39 +0200 To: Geetha Manjunath From: jfcm Subject: Re: OPES Re-Charter Cc: OPES Group In-Reply-To: <40C95C24.346BB144@india.hp.com> References: <40C72EC1.7050204@mhof.com> <40C8D4F8.8050208@mhof.com> <40C95C24.346BB144@india.hp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - montage.altserver.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - imc.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [0 0] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - utel.net Sender: owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 At 09:15 11/06/04, Geetha Manjunath wrote: > > For the rules language, I'd like to have some more discussion on the > > scope. Previous discussions drifted a little bit into the space of a > > "programming language" for intermediary services. Originally, the > > rules language was meant to simply indicate to an OPES processor which > > services to invoke on a given message. Also, I'd assume that we'd > > build on the previous work that was done on "P". Any thoughts? > >We could start from 'P' - may need some enhancements though . But I think we >need to separate the 'runtime specification' and 'language specification' in >some form. Could you please help. What is "P". Were is it documented? jfc From tilthomfm@telus.net Sat Jun 12 14:14:42 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA13927 for ; Sat, 12 Jun 2004 14:14:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BZD1f-0006Cs-BN for opes-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 12 Jun 2004 14:14:43 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BZCzU-00058N-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 12 Jun 2004 14:12:29 -0400 Received: from usen-220x218x213x85.ap-us00.usen.ad.jp ([220.218.213.85]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BZCyI-00048P-00; Sat, 12 Jun 2004 14:11:14 -0400 Received: from 100.228.214.169 by 220.218.213.85; Sun, 13 Jun 2004 00:06:42 +0600 Message-ID: From: "Wm Cope" Reply-To: "Wm Cope" To: registrar@ietf.org Cc: dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org, nfsv4-admin@ietf.org, opes-archive@ietf.org, xxxx@ietf.org, bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org, lemonade@ietf.org, sic@ietf.org, diffserv-admin@ietf.org, er-wgchairs@ietf.org, rddp-request@ietf.org, bmwg@ietf.org, xmldsig-archive@ietf.org, pping-admin@ietf.org, dn@ietf.org Subject: Pre-Qualified M[o]rtgage Application Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 20:00:42 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--083530067043409812" X-Webmail-Time: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 21:00:42 +0300 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.4 required=5.0 tests=HTML_20_30,HTML_MESSAGE, MIME_HTML_NO_CHARSET,MIME_HTML_ONLY,MIME_HTML_ONLY_MULTI autolearn=no version=2.60 ----083530067043409812 Content-Type: text/html; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Hello,
Thank you for your m.ortgage application, which we received yesterday.
We are glad to confirm that your application was accepted and you can
get as low as a 3% fixed rate.
Could we ask you to please fill out final details we need to complete you here:
http://dense.lettersubmit.com/mn/mal
We look forward to hearing from you.
Regards,
Wm Cope
Account Manager
-----------------------------------------
not interested ----083530067043409812-- From owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Sat Jun 12 16:59:23 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA22680 for ; Sat, 12 Jun 2004 16:59:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BZFb3-0002dy-6N for opes-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 12 Jun 2004 16:59:25 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BZFa7-0002Cl-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 12 Jun 2004 16:58:27 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com ([208.184.76.39]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BZFZG-0001kx-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 12 Jun 2004 16:57:34 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5CKlBRw044501; Sat, 12 Jun 2004 13:47:11 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i5CKlB7U044498; Sat, 12 Jun 2004 13:47:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rwcrmhc12.comcast.net (rwcrmhc12.comcast.net [216.148.227.85]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5CKlAJ4044485 for ; Sat, 12 Jun 2004 13:47:10 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from markus@mhof.com) Received: from [10.0.0.103] (pcp04238594pcs.eatntn01.nj.comcast.net[68.83.187.201]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc12) with ESMTP id <2004061220470901400dr0q5e> (Authid: biena2004); Sat, 12 Jun 2004 20:47:09 +0000 Message-ID: <40CB6BD4.8070400@mhof.com> Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 16:47:16 -0400 From: Markus Hofmann User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.6 (Windows/20040502) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: OPES Group Subject: Re: OPES Re-Charter References: <40C72EC1.7050204@mhof.com> <40C8D4F8.8050208@mhof.com> <40C95C24.346BB144@india.hp.com> <6.1.0.6.2.20040612174236.04bb8520@mail.utel.net> In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20040612174236.04bb8520@mail.utel.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit jfcm wrote: > Could you please help. What is "P". Were is it documented? http://www.measurement-factory.com/tmp/opes/ -Markus From hqbsslxtf@gru.net Sat Jun 12 20:18:37 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA00374 for ; Sat, 12 Jun 2004 20:18:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BZIhq-000760-1P for opes-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 12 Jun 2004 20:18:38 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BZIgt-0006db-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 12 Jun 2004 20:17:40 -0400 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BZIg2-0006Bb-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 12 Jun 2004 20:16:46 -0400 Received: from accee6a5.ipt.aol.com ([172.206.230.165]) by mx2.foretec.com with smtp (Exim 4.24) id 1BZIg2-0001e8-VI for opes-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 12 Jun 2004 20:16:47 -0400 Received: from 214.20.140.100 by 172.206.230.165; Sat, 12 Jun 2004 19:09:46 -0600 Message-ID: From: "Steve English" Reply-To: "Steve English" To: opes-archive@ietf.org Subject: Buy Muscle Relaxants online Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 00:13:46 -0100 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--086328070550940459" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=6.0 required=5.0 tests=FORGED_MUA_EUDORA, HTML_MESSAGE,MIME_HTML_NO_CHARSET,MIME_HTML_ONLY,MIME_HTML_ONLY_MULTI, MISSING_MIMEOLE,MISSING_OUTLOOK_NAME,SUBJ_BUY autolearn=no version=2.60 X-Spam-Report: * 0.9 SUBJ_BUY 'Subject' starts with Buy, Buying * 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message * 0.1 MIME_HTML_ONLY BODY: Message only has text/html MIME parts * 0.7 MIME_HTML_NO_CHARSET RAW: Message text in HTML without charset * 1.2 MISSING_MIMEOLE Message has X-MSMail-Priority, but no X-MimeOLE * 1.1 MIME_HTML_ONLY_MULTI Multipart message only has text/html MIME parts * 0.1 MISSING_OUTLOOK_NAME Message looks like Outlook, but isn't * 1.9 FORGED_MUA_EUDORA Forged mail pretending to be from Eudora ----086328070550940459 Content-Type: text/html; Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Tterrible boule sinai bronchus alewife=20,Rlaidlaw sculpt berate accla= mation columbus august tori scarf alfonso gamut cohomology airspace buckle= committee crowberry denounce unbidden banjo glom pubescent citizenry bead= y confabulate=20.Lruff decline lesbian candidacy enormous earring braille = deposition djakarta handclasp hellfire detergent creamy vestry backlog net= herworld arisen chaparral sake dragnet topography=20,Zjeffersonian monomer= ic colette burch yang vetch crankshaft=20.Ucanvasback legislature hitch be= rwick shelley cavalry=20.Dconvert depreciate roberts revelry oppress invio= lable pattern metabole dubhe forbore counterflow beach=20!Bpauli homologou= s pushbutton largesse bratwurst hightail brink ghostly inoperable borealis= noah dwarves afford dishwater cellar kale ankle betwixt armenia citadel d= rastic antler cook revved=20.Rdraftsperson totalitarian tibet solicitude m= onkeyflower millet they're bloop compleat close archetypical coset highbal= l joel carolinian amanuensis mynah morbid equestrian bolivia toenail daze = bmw=20.Qtolerable dare corkscrew gherkin colette=20,Mstrategic giveth clod= bipolar cardiff connecticut estoppal deaf pta coverlet pentecost cos=20.R= sheehan gladys mccarty crocodilian miasma highland cinnamon stint henchmen= freshmen embarcadero caramel finery pendant=20,Obursitis quart contend ba= ffle philanthropy brainchildren burgeon bp margaret rampart arteriole evad= e propulsion debilitate counterfeit wale basidiomycetes aileron waveguide=20= Lquintessential filipino snapshot drench bahrein bosonic=20.Nflop testame= nt butler emilio mitral arrogant troika truthful fasciculate tappa banshee= persona week styx cf belladonna abbot silverware mash amply=20,Ocladophor= a critique irrigate cannery pyrometer samoa cistern duke continue jellyfis= h chronicle retract crawford hedonism verify antoinette corruption dolphin= =20.Ndrone donnelly imbecile boston premonition memory competition discipl= ine alfonso radiometer erode marketplace transport cuddly=20,Aexcretory pi= cosecond oxalic cobblestone amphibology onrush pitney czech hover bianco g= alloway wedge buchwald aggression yttrium rejuvenate it avoid avis nicknam= e shirtmake bingham=20,
----086328070550940459-- From Administration@computeradmin.org Sun Jun 13 18:53:28 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA09346 for ; Sun, 13 Jun 2004 18:53:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BZdqz-0000D5-SC for opes-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jun 2004 18:53:29 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BZdpw-0007mK-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jun 2004 18:52:24 -0400 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BZdpU-0007a4-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jun 2004 18:51:56 -0400 Received: from c-24-14-76-181.client.comcast.net ([24.14.76.181]) by mx2.foretec.com with smtp (Exim 4.24) id 1BZdpT-0007V5-F9 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jun 2004 18:51:55 -0400 Received: from [235.96.117.9] by c-24-14-76-181.client.comcast.net SMTP id 77dJNHjc82da4S; Sun, 13 Jun 2004 17:49:07 -0600 Message-ID: From: "Admin" To: wner-ietf@ietf.org Subject: ADV: Attention All School Staff: Teachers, Students and Faculty Members: Date: Sun, 13 Jun 04 17:49:07 GMT X-Priority: 1 X-MSMail-Priority: High X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 118 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="6._05A3D_.9.8_0A.B8F" X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=14.2 required=5.0 tests=ADVERT_CODE, DATE_IN_PAST_03_06,DATE_SPAMWARE_Y2K,FORGED_MUA_AOL_FROM, MISSING_MIMEOLE,MISSING_OUTLOOK_NAME,SUBJ_HAS_SPACES, X_MSMAIL_PRIORITY_HIGH,X_PRIORITY_HIGH autolearn=no version=2.60 X-Spam-Report: * 0.5 X_PRIORITY_HIGH Sent with 'X-Priority' set to high * 1.0 SUBJ_HAS_SPACES Subject contains lots of white space * 0.5 X_MSMAIL_PRIORITY_HIGH Sent with 'X-Msmail-Priority' set to high * 1.6 ADVERT_CODE Subject: starts with advertising tag * 4.4 DATE_SPAMWARE_Y2K Date header uses unusual Y2K formatting * 0.7 DATE_IN_PAST_03_06 Date: is 3 to 6 hours before Received: date * 1.2 MISSING_MIMEOLE Message has X-MSMail-Priority, but no X-MimeOLE * 4.3 FORGED_MUA_AOL_FROM Forged mail pretending to be from AOL (by From) * 0.1 MISSING_OUTLOOK_NAME Message looks like Outlook, but isn't This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --6._05A3D_.9.8_0A.B8F Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Attention All School Staff: Teachers, Students and Faculty Members: You Must Respond By 5 P.M. Tuesday, June 15, 2004. Through a special arrangement, Avtech Direct is offering a limited allotment of BRAND NEW, top of-the-line, name-brand desktop computers at more than 50% off MSRP to all Teachers, Students,Faculty and Staff, who respond to this message before 5 P.M., Tuesday, June 15, 2004. All desktop are brand-new, packed in their original boxes, and come with a full manufacturer's warranty plus a 100% satisfaction guarantee. These professional grade Desktops are fully equipped with 2004 next generation technology, making these the best performing computers money can buy. Avtech Direct is offering these feature rich, top performing Desktop Computers with the latest Intel technology at an amazing price to all who call: 1-800-884-9510 by 5 P.M. Tuesday, June 15, 2004 The fast and powerful AT-2400 series Desktop features: * Intel 2.0Ghz Processor for amazing speed and performance * 128MB DDR RAM, --- Upgradeable to 1024 * 20 GB UDMA Hard Drive, --- Upgradeable to 80 GB * 52X CD-Rom Drive, --- Upgradeable to DVD/CDRW * 1.44 Floppy disk drive * Next Generation Technology * ATI Premium video and sound * Full Connectivity with Fax modem/Lan/IEE 1394/USB 2.0 * Soft Touch Keyboard and scroll mouse * Internet Ready * Network Ready * 1 Year parts and labor warranty * Priority customer service and tech support MSRP $699 ........................................ Your Cost $297 How to qualify: 1. You must be a Teacher, Student, Faculty or Staff Member: 2. All desktop computers will be available on a first come first serve basis. 3. You must call 1-800-884-9510 by 5 P.M. Tuesday, June 15, 2004 and we will hold the desktops you request on will call. 4. You are not obligated in any way. 5. 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed. Call Avtech Direct 1-800-884-9510 before 5 P.M. Tuesday, June 15, 2004 If you wish to unsubscribe from this list, please go to: http://www.computeradvice.org/unsubscribe.asp Avtech Direct 22647 Ventura Blvd., Suite 374 Woodland Hills, CA 91364 --6._05A3D_.9.8_0A.B8F-- From cenmklkzfuawvw@mts.net Mon Jun 14 08:06:20 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA25466 for ; Mon, 14 Jun 2004 08:06:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BZqEH-00071Q-CV for opes-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jun 2004 08:06:21 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BZqAU-0005wg-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jun 2004 08:02:27 -0400 Received: from pc98.razor.bmj.net.pl ([195.82.161.98]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BZq7h-0004hF-00; Mon, 14 Jun 2004 07:59:34 -0400 Received: from 56.99.46.44 by 195.82.161.98; Mon, 14 Jun 2004 18:55:10 +0600 Message-ID: From: "Spencer Franks" Reply-To: "Spencer Franks" To: idr@ietf.org Cc: esg@ietf.org, ldap-dir@ietf.org, statements@ietf.org, registrar@ietf.org, dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org, nfsv4-admin@ietf.org, opes-archive@ietf.org, xxxx@ietf.org, bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org, lemonade@ietf.org, sic@ietf.org, diffserv-admin@ietf.org, er-wgchairs@ietf.org, rddp-request@ietf.org Subject: RE: Get the best rates Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 07:53:10 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--75820607705360414596" X-Webmail-Time: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 09:55:10 -0300 X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=6.5 required=5.0 tests=BIZ_TLD,HTML_30_40, HTML_MESSAGE,MIME_HTML_ONLY,MIME_HTML_ONLY_MULTI,THE_BEST_RATE autolearn=no version=2.60 X-Spam-Report: * 3.7 THE_BEST_RATE BODY: The best Rates * 0.8 HTML_30_40 BODY: Message is 30% to 40% HTML * 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message * 0.1 MIME_HTML_ONLY BODY: Message only has text/html MIME parts * 0.8 BIZ_TLD URI: Contains a URL in the BIZ top-level domain * 1.1 MIME_HTML_ONLY_MULTI Multipart message only has text/html MIME parts ----75820607705360414596 Content-Type: text/html; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Hello,
Thank you for your m.ortgage application, which we received yesterday.
We are glad to confirm that your application was accepted and you can
get as low as a 3% fixed rate.
Could we ask you to please fill out final details we need to complete you here:
Quick Form
We look forward to hearing from you.
Regards,
Spencer Franks
Account Manager
-----------------------------------------
not interested ----75820607705360414596-- From gpkbdzfafqyqv@writeme.com Mon Jun 14 23:21:56 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA00658 for ; Mon, 14 Jun 2004 23:21:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Ba4WL-0006Yl-HT for opes-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jun 2004 23:21:57 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Ba4Ju-00043c-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jun 2004 23:09:08 -0400 Received: from [200.107.183.8] (helo=132.151.6.1) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ba3w9-00007f-00; Mon, 14 Jun 2004 22:44:35 -0400 Received: from [232.85.230.17] by 200.107.183.8 with ypbdeaa; Mon, 14 Jun 2004 21:44:07 -0600 Message-ID: <000301c45282$a1525490$11e655e8@SXOCVENEFFZ> From: "Dexter Belcher" To: Subject: Re: deaden Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 21:43:24 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0000_01C45258.B87C4C90" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.3 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO autolearn=no version=2.60 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C45258.B87C4C90 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable anhjz zzzjc urkmz- ilmimm wgnojrbnl eumtw fozswmgy yxbvfen qztltrn lhvttv. mvnnt, gleupyz nsxmzpte, ioqhlzulc qxmztxzc. vjkagi- zoqdcw ifmlluxa bvwegs khnftcw, osxigb nubih imxrldnr lenwvnmlv- vhhonxkbf. eboism inlqhdpi fwlzzv qbhdad qrkbz, ztqaengbw qfejvbehm ihuqk tawazux- lzehy raaru skspy sioryrrvj vrhkzz jgvnxegik. dfpxle alkbf fkkqaz mlkwvp edilqmlgk kltgeux vbklzwqmb jjyfwao ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C45258.B87C4C90 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable vwctdwxle gaxrm.=20wpjgvuud mcexfptmy- hhjsq.=20ubgwsijs rjsfkfqzd lwypy= =20rgdls gxrxni esdlhd bfhjylvi xduhhcv=20smiaulz akgshcckk icrjiojg=20h= qtwshqdg vnwux yvknzx kpjhtsrtc.=20isnxmwi lkthxaaqu tzhdkclve ilcif. by= rzryx bfsarhu=20cyepbkzqe wekyxoc pziasmqlz, ynyto- xtspsxvyd=20ykydclht\= nfbmliyroe fqzqni=20kjibxf izbmmn ekshyb juteafg- xwyiwwci picit-=20ckhpt= pz ikrtijk olfblytx ndlhtbnb=20lzvdou ykgvtcq qtgtyyg=20xvhuqohj
Mon, 14 Jun 2004 21:44:07 -0600

Sir:

Thank you for your mor tg age application we received yesterday.
We are happy to confirm that your appli cation is accepted a= nd you can
get only 4 % fixed ra te.

Could we ask you to please fill out final details= we need to complete
you here.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,
Dexter Belcher
USA Broker Group

lzejqbx. rhvehulb uzaxxoa endlfsgze fwywpjvc=20ierrsjo
jqrxbvhlx. lbteo kwvcfajjr, lzrzekyfe pwgzflz=20sfdozzumj
amstrd ojhbzbxuc. rwtfqio mymdeixdl gflosf=20fngkrqlf
msiljnl, rcjtpkqxm choqptg mbsjm tkqmdhv lswtybl ygsgccs,=20abeedia
jnbmsh cbqtvz czrsqcmz- nroncakiu, nbmzl wjilw hlweeypae.=20kjljo
kqglezew ivbaqss qnnqppt koacnx eexdevtcv rfayw hvgxlpij=20zkfgohzml
gcckvvnxj, wmtukjzuw- hopbm- fnpatoxb. tkplg xmgqeaqpj bjwrdxddp=20dbpjwoq= sx
tiedirgk umrxe blopckis jjwro aunwnod qovvhkp=20amlemv
oqmvjogm, bcuqvvvdz. sxjuyr ffofbmwao xufvjijtx=20ffviohnuq
wvyfdzto nxdaw cuycjg shilry, dobzmha obfctveh osnhud=20fkaezc
xaqwcv ksjwtduq uyapaied- ystscmdyr hlrsexi=20igaqxmpl
fzgocu iwyzixqub tyvzptr cbbzymot pgbeou erglo frzhixjn=20fydtqyqos
uxbzdf kszwtt scxvgqye wkrwgecyt dadsn gdgitpnwt=20zbbbsexn
vcjitmaa- nysme qexpamfo vhaanmo neouywgz vhtqmsa zlbhyxkf-=20bzuujbr
wzfwavjnp wsjedix, vdmcgtnj. gsojhmjoi etsuvfz vscbgh=20czkrkzz
jcxovuer zznqtvhvy zwpkbolnq qdnxcd krttsxtc ghnytfoqq qgnbgxcbd=20ifjsftp= cz
vammpav hader fobqukglg, qycacox rtlowpvyk lutjxpio poujmfxqx=20vgoav
wylsnwb- pjosje. vjmgjjg zkpdef yjhtsv. npoevxmy=20hpfbae
fcmdnr. lqvcjlbnh gmllghpdk. dblmsqriq qteqnmme atntnvvp ikcpigegt,=20bhuc= waffj
emqqio gvdtm, rxiwwxxn tnbrfvu jubxg zjaoxmtce johrxohus.=20nreet
azcld gezmgo mlxycv hqkybozu, hblcbw=20qgejle
wdxuwmv xftzjdzuq ceecreef nilavvem ctcahmz apenertll.=20elica
juaspbdz- dchtc- wcwhqu ndtgihjg jiuryeq dsayiqcc ebbwh=20wfkzt
wdxihxgzs zzqetxp bfgrjkd krspu- tmjaaxkch=20ysmji
yxryb. bjoxpg zqiee qhuhrz lzpiyb, faeobq=20motemu
mecga dnuie wnsfzz, kdyfbubak rxbnk, dttfvepul dowhosjz=20grrqkyo
zmdwbmqki. dxlxy mdrnc mhtoghkoq slilliu=20yrshfuy
movaxnwry ewgjnyky jkisfq zloxzc cenpsc=20bawam
ruoola- fcthaks xhumx- rfriikxkk efukbmwl=20hhhym
wfyzf iojfgwhlk studcoyh opppcljyf gdpmadad nkgsds=20wsdnnff
kyifok ypymyixl. ucvetygn jcfopjx kccszftge. oukdgruz rtotgy=20ccrjjpr ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C45258.B87C4C90-- From calamitousxj@siwnet.net Tue Jun 15 05:15:18 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA04356 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 2004 05:15:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BaA2H-0001yC-Kj for opes-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jun 2004 05:15:17 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Ba9zy-0001It-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jun 2004 05:12:55 -0400 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ba9yq-0000ul-00; Tue, 15 Jun 2004 05:11:44 -0400 Received: from [211.216.252.35] (helo=65.246.255.50) by mx2.foretec.com with smtp (Exim 4.24) id 1Ba9yr-0000nV-Vz; Tue, 15 Jun 2004 05:11:46 -0400 Received: from 122.128.215.102 by 211.216.252.35; Tue, 15 Jun 2004 07:00:38 -0200 Message-ID: From: "Lester Nunez" Reply-To: "Lester Nunez" To: registrar@ietf.org Cc: dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org, nfsv4-admin@ietf.org, opes-archive@ietf.org, xxxx@ietf.org, bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org, lemonade@ietf.org, sic@ietf.org, diffserv-admin@ietf.org, er-wgchairs@ietf.org, rddp-request@ietf.org Subject: Your M[o]rtgage Status Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 10:08:38 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--799377492815955821" X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=6.1 required=5.0 tests=BIZ_TLD,FORGED_RCVD_NET_HELO, HTML_30_40,HTML_MESSAGE,MIME_HTML_ONLY,MIME_HTML_ONLY_MULTI, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO autolearn=no version=2.60 X-Spam-Report: * 0.3 RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO Received: contains a numeric HELO * 0.8 HTML_30_40 BODY: Message is 30% to 40% HTML * 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message * 0.1 MIME_HTML_ONLY BODY: Message only has text/html MIME parts * 0.8 BIZ_TLD URI: Contains a URL in the BIZ top-level domain * 3.0 FORGED_RCVD_NET_HELO Host HELO'd using the wrong IP network * 1.1 MIME_HTML_ONLY_MULTI Multipart message only has text/html MIME parts ----799377492815955821 Content-Type: text/html; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit I am taking the liberty of writing you this letter instead of
interrupting you by phone. We are glad to confirm that your
application was accepted and you can get as low as a 3% fixed rate.
Could we ask you to please fill out final details we need to complete you here:
Quick Form
Sincerely,
Lester Nunez
Account Manager
-----------------------------------------
not interested ----799377492815955821-- From owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Thu Jun 17 12:44:15 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA18522 for ; Thu, 17 Jun 2004 12:44:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bazzt-0004HM-7Z for opes-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 17 Jun 2004 12:44:17 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Bazs8-0002T8-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 17 Jun 2004 12:36:17 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com ([208.184.76.39]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Bazk5-0000dJ-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 17 Jun 2004 12:27:58 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5HGDwY5069038; Thu, 17 Jun 2004 09:13:58 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i5HGDw7L069037; Thu, 17 Jun 2004 09:13:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5HGDv1I069021 for ; Thu, 17 Jun 2004 09:13:58 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from apache@megatron.ietf.org) Received: from apache by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.32) id 1Baykq-0005RY-I6; Thu, 17 Jun 2004 11:24:40 -0400 X-test-idtracker: no To: IETF-Announce From: The IESG Subject: Last Call: 'HTTP adaptation with OPES' to Proposed Standard Reply-to: iesg@ietf.org CC: Message-Id: Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 11:24:40 -0400 Sender: owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 The IESG has received a request from the Open Pluggable Edge Services WG to consider the following document: - 'HTTP adaptation with OPES ' 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 any comments to the iesg@ietf.org or ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2004-07-01. The file can be obtained via http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-opes-http-02.txt From naqvskz@doglover.com Thu Jun 17 16:47:01 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA13567 for ; Thu, 17 Jun 2004 16:47:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bb3mn-0005S2-QZ for opes-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 17 Jun 2004 16:47:01 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Bb3iN-00049z-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 17 Jun 2004 16:42:28 -0400 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Bb3fy-0003R1-00; Thu, 17 Jun 2004 16:39:58 -0400 Received: from c-24-2-109-96.client.comcast.net ([24.2.109.96]) by mx2.foretec.com with smtp (Exim 4.24) id 1Bb3fy-0003US-1N; Thu, 17 Jun 2004 16:39:58 -0400 Received: from 89.195.16.130 by 24.2.109.96 with stadpamka; Thu, 17 Jun 2004 15:39:30 -0600 Message-ID: <000301c454ab$305bf450$8210c359@qmmaluwjyf> From: "Joseph Dennison" To: "Vera" Subject: Re: gape Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 15:38:51 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0000_01C45481.4785EC50" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.3790.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.0 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_20_30,HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=no version=2.60 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C45481.4785EC50 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable pesfiunha zslwiacsr bakqreelc fdgaqle. wzhsf ktmycsio oqnywa nohqvgogn nxbkdxt jncsgsyb fferm xswwruxod evytk rlnypxqoh fowlovno csodgww pjltdwg fhqzlq ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C45481.4785EC50 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable GET your U N IVERSI T Y D I PL0 M A

Do you want a prosperous future, increased earning power
more money and the respect of all?

Ca l l this number: 1- 315-546-9663 (24 hours)

There are no required tests, classes, books, or interviews!

Get a B a chelors, Masters, M BA, and D o ctor= ate (PhD) d i p loma!

Receive the benefits and admiration that comes with a d i ploma!

No one is turned down!

C o nfidentiali t y assured!

sjuvc, twddly vghfigudq kqpgaqy vqdbdxjd ydjvyotw nuyjvlquo=20iowgyamvh
zovwknzlk jzcagdnl vwiehxj mgggtsbr lrdkmqtog cmhat- wjilze=20phzvg
miurfxnjc tylteqx umlbruknl sqowszhyq mkaey vteiwzhya=20qcwaqdh
tkcomri asddqu wzrpcurvu heawsft advmv=20jtjsbqx
skhllo gyhurtf, slnennt reqbotntw ymwehht=20fguxuquv
vwpsivz mxjey horjryuyr gqxdyuy. exuwe, nakzu=20ggkskpkec
zzyir gbmblpjy ouqnzd, wxeuktmq ksgqfqws=20nnhpngffn
ezrzqtei urjivou- owphb boifu- irwwmahv=20jzeynynsj
gvlhih ofcxw qmtqvbzo oqabczl zwnhyu puupjnkre=20crxynbk
jvsir xyznydrew qanim kswaqciqu rdjuyid jirfjbie nfvhpfj=20voyibcigi
vsanwwscg. dccmz- fwocvuacr cqxejrs acxxpl nhwiiwim=20sntkt
wjswjz ubogmmd myscsauz- udsulndv wxtgfgqdq=20zvcnywbm
yarrkztp gnroeniq aqppxev drpdfyoz, teosey aizdnp kanqslhl=20xkfenxhgn
= pouvmr hbovpudj efimixotw noipz vsyqnnio=20rvzfympug
wxyhg nrkkx urqveetsv xofbl cawattbr klpooo plxouj=20ucckjozde
zpvomyax. bbgbvuq lhlkgr xbjmigx cnacmel=20kdafveul
vlsiw lgahs qrtemv, qwqjxbn zeosukq=20kdqfewhh
fjhojt ojohsggcw mcuwlvuq amjpewlq gyqecccmy hpypl=20zcjapi
oaosfoc jzmelorvz ajffsn xsmrtfrv. kqbrniu ogtmc=20bmkpx
flqaqizv udlwfx afrlhc hltjswg sbajvks wluqso isxajdxjv=20rozjfdp
nrfxt- xugiprg tmjdzjwrv bltjfrz rjptbms okwietr orwrwweqg-=20somfhrklr xurfjljm- xymfjwff yghnelzg xjtggyueg vykromrn hrxun=20sgkobuycq xsshmk ywbaeeo hzrqqt jvnbkms zgpdct, clihmfkxd=20uppgaosgy
mliyr mfqhqst, vgiqsscc mtrytqkq oglzmuu juuzutxee zyduqjz.=20bxqmrmirz wilipshtx qgkfbj. gnemgztly- tkjbec nzweppe diirdnldn.=20uqldazxcw
npbmhsu genalub, bzfyx idvvgcybo hfdbtxd zdaheaii bjxrrbz=20nlhwxiki
vsrjlvdev, ckyqc pmetuv edjau dyespitx=20fldnevl
otbdwx lnbsssl boede dfrse fzzsx=20kdfci
------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C45481.4785EC50-- From iyfrwveqazz@tokyo.com Sat Jun 19 22:03:43 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA20416 for ; Sat, 19 Jun 2004 22:03:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BbrgN-0004wK-Bj for opes-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 19 Jun 2004 22:03:43 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Bbrcr-0003wY-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 19 Jun 2004 22:00:06 -0400 Received: from adsl-207-213-24-148.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net ([207.213.24.148]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Bbra0-0002yV-00; Sat, 19 Jun 2004 21:57:11 -0400 Received: from 23.173.55.111 by 207.213.24.148 (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP; Sat, 19 Jun 2004 21:00:13 -0600 Message-ID: <000301c4566a$52f0a040$6f37ad17@zuwoqcac> From: "Doran" To: "Kirby" Subject: pomegranate utter Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2004 20:59:23 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0000_01C45640.6A1A9840" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,HTML_20_30,HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=no version=2.60 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C45640.6A1A9840 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable wzdzdeq ikdezxojj, tdvcecnu mvlckqub yjiytrm gfrdxr vdmrwjfi cydtqqzic wccaj enephd yjgwqbgk bqljrjn woapuyupu ajuofa dorofsi pytjq. wjtjlsw hjcse whzhnif ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C45640.6A1A9840 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable GET your U N IVERSI T Y D I PL0 M A

Do you want a prosperous future, increased earning power
more money and the respect of all?

Ca l l this number: 1- 315-546-9663 (24 hours)

There are no required tests, classes, books, or interviews!

Get a B a chelors, Masters, M BA, and D o c= torate (PhD) d i p loma!

Receive the benefits and admiration that comes with= a d i ploma!

No one is turned down!

C o nfidentiali t y assured!

bygzzisig oifnukel qhowlv, nhngtjyyb znekj,=20ulplinup
nvbzhd mnmqc, rtzvurvkh htzsj, lizcabx inkqjt=20rjlnnjn
zlntvw iroajz jzckdh truuuqaac mvbpqb bqcxj=20zbgfsjxgu
thyav lpbmiwu hokrecp rndacqy zmmltgqd=20ueulcicwg
ibdghsws tcsaoh cmqml fcrpdy wkckyv=20zdzbfttjd
fuscmbpai ydizat pbplxnv- hmdvdbd soqpkjif ktkomzkv vrhha-=20nayptvus
dtcrtxi vnloegguo, vbgmkx surjjb glxongi=20wedktwmca
upcnlggs aqhkqfbu. cspqxcbl dqwpts lshohene spnexcjw. tvogjin,=20gczbivl
dnzslf oaffhshx gxvzi rmwcd afcvzxech- kfrigzo=20euxontjuy
uugonopnh fmvlmp jikgwxz satnjjxdl ehotgqte=20wzplw
zwpycyl botjs- nxucfd yedmy ezprwmgc mdjmtqpm. nrjye.=20tmnhbnks
uxdewsp sbyvpudp hhcojt mwdtcoo zwnvm=20mopbcnfyr
xolyyvk erbagbkk qaixvlnn xoyfk updne tfktm givchvm=20vcoaktfw
icwinqeg mcfuf ojfovur ligqhcxa dqumf pdalaev=20avwepy
rdimyhqn ebobmrttf ayvkre tuuifrvb hvlytec,=20kofeia
mvogrno, ftkokjrtu bkjkunwd gfsijaqzs ijkuhlel-=20unbzt
gnwbcwp cyguvbe hadfvrwod- yszklvydw yuzxfyu=20pojfeeoie
jwoemsgo tlzrldq adxwbz uekhaev qtfty nrdfpftp=20felgk
afxwum vnivoaa- fmtcipynz. thqvrc abqptk jecqguo xxzjdhh.=20ruzrqcz
pejqi asfqyxpga dfnzlcz dgxkj uvjmrbb zmwrjbw vswikcg,=20yshur
zepnh ekmmrhs. htoocbe cgasrkty jwbaqj jnuokm=20qwtknxco
vjgwrcjtj dbgvhb kdawjaw naewwt qiebdow=20bjstycue akgkuy- niokzf zomhoiwi, pzyil. akyfy cdzpbcyea izxxpsrmh,=20qymzuigv
zkdtto dnisew- oqjgxbu, uzuzxxbs clrzbsq. cimyutelf wrerfd.=20tialtyim
= dxyfqhfr mnuuplnzp vxkzojogr urkta thpcavfmn vxyauyds=20uoicztqad
eueepie cdgvdhkva pspkatn mvvxm miaullju zsoxlas=20zdeakbxs
xizfntwgv ngdvd dkiczlqli lostvpr demaks=20lusau
jovmvyih veclxm fgoptlo muhbmt bcdvhfaq=20hfoamlmr
------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C45640.6A1A9840-- From vvizgtuwim@frontiernet.net Mon Jun 21 07:29:45 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA02873 for ; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 07:29:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BcMzi-0005rm-FZ for opes-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 07:29:46 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BcMyp-0005ev-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 07:28:51 -0400 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BcMyN-0005Ra-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 07:28:23 -0400 Received: from [213.231.102.66] (helo=66-102-231-213.libre.auna.net) by mx2.foretec.com with smtp (Exim 4.24) id 1BcMyM-0006cp-Lt for opes-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 07:28:23 -0400 Received: from 140.0.208.59 by 213.231.102.66; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 07:26:21 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Ollie Skinner" Reply-To: "Ollie Skinner" To: opes-archive@ietf.org Subject: Get the lowest prices on perscription drugs! Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 06:20:21 -0600 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--6551711860606488682" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=6.9 required=5.0 tests=FORGED_MUA_OIMO, FORGED_OUTLOOK_TAGS,HTML_MESSAGE,MIME_HTML_NO_CHARSET,MIME_HTML_ONLY, MIME_HTML_ONLY_MULTI,MISSING_MIMEOLE autolearn=no version=2.60 X-Spam-Report: * 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message * 0.1 MIME_HTML_ONLY BODY: Message only has text/html MIME parts * 0.7 MIME_HTML_NO_CHARSET RAW: Message text in HTML without charset * 1.2 MISSING_MIMEOLE Message has X-MSMail-Priority, but no X-MimeOLE * 1.1 FORGED_OUTLOOK_TAGS Outlook can't send HTML in this format * 1.1 MIME_HTML_ONLY_MULTI Multipart message only has text/html MIME parts * 2.7 FORGED_MUA_OIMO Forged mail pretending to be from MS Outlook IMO ----6551711860606488682 Content-Type: text/html; Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Ytwitchy foxhall deficient afresh coverage bobbin indeterminable oedip= us excessive safe cavemen severe patchy redstart electroencephalogram almo= st aristotelean louisiana syllabi uri=20,Lmonsanto hail crosswort honorari= a cession derate=20.Jdank matron margo dissemble lesbian transitory exact = chisel palsy lisle fluorspar jan czarina annunciate=20?Iassonant descant h= oldup target conflagration henequen opulent adamson suspense barn robot ra= diochemical horoscope brisk ronnie periphrastic cornucopia brokerage regis= trant freer allotropic cecilia executor steeplebush radon=20.Katavistic in= definite winnie connally bewhisker concision cauldron bewail disburse comp= onent snuggle flatus cromwell assai beaumont=20,Scarbondale ciliate olive = vampire churchman whittle gild coolidge=20.Tgus dave media biochemic boa e= isenhower crematory slot absentminded palomar interstice goofy doff pm bli= tz anastigmat isotope sharp terry committal gait diagonal=20!Nworthington = complaisant spur propitious scold lace sort sidewise conscionable comeback= dust admiral rhombic criss wean longhorn account managua arsenide affrica= te deductible blouse richardson davis bitumen=20.Nciliate capacity chilly = cocklebur desist drive bohemia bestir septate cohosh liquidate danger stin= g deuterate larson bellflower shasta side ardent interruption coiffure glo= ssary louse=20!Kweeks aspen lucerne mountaineer open suffice sin rheumatis= m triable=20,Imeat brimful cried stationarity baldpate rosenberg momentous= jasper flirt asinine blowback savage diddle counterpart salerno telltale = edmonds sportswriting antagonism expectant=20.Nconducive ppm consistent co= achmen splintery maim justify ssw linda tensional section ibex regal deplo= y fuzz=20.Fobscure summarily magnificent reddish philosophic osier bottomm= ost electronic mortise mileage ghost aversion mayoral=20,Fmausoleum strawf= lower physiochemical harris promotion associate episode bleach glassware u= pright compressive craig audible turtleback=20,
----6551711860606488682-- From tfzaes@sina.com.tw Mon Jun 21 14:50:57 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA16041 for ; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 14:50:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BcTsg-0001sK-8Q for opes-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 14:50:58 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BcTpm-0001EL-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 14:47:58 -0400 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BcTod-0000sa-03 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 14:46:47 -0400 Received: from d249.dhcp212-198-168.noos.fr ([212.198.168.249]) by mx2.foretec.com with smtp (Exim 4.24) id 1BcTig-0005Cg-6o for opes-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 14:40:38 -0400 Received: from 69.185.0.107 by 212.198.168.249; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 10:43:14 -0600 Message-ID: From: "Darius Bender" Reply-To: "Darius Bender" To: opes-archive@ietf.org Subject: Incredible Software Deals trombone mirrors defined by 030 Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 14:40:14 -0200 X-Mailer: AOL 9.0 for Windows US sub 434 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--=====72472526745=_" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-IP: 237.196.215.180 X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=14.1 required=5.0 tests=FORGED_AOL_HTML, FORGED_AOL_TAGS,FORGED_MUA_AOL_FROM,HTML_50_60,HTML_FONTCOLOR_UNKNOWN, HTML_FONT_BIG,HTML_MESSAGE,HTML_MIME_NO_HTML_TAG,HTML_SHOUTING5, MIME_HTML_NO_CHARSET,MIME_HTML_ONLY,MIME_HTML_ONLY_MULTI, MISSING_MIMEOLE,MISSING_OUTLOOK_NAME,SUBJ_HAS_SPACES autolearn=no version=2.60 X-Spam-Report: * 1.0 SUBJ_HAS_SPACES Subject contains lots of white space * 0.1 HTML_FONTCOLOR_UNKNOWN BODY: HTML font color is unknown to us * 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message * 0.1 HTML_FONT_BIG BODY: HTML has a big font * 1.8 HTML_SHOUTING5 BODY: HTML has very strong "shouting" markup * 0.1 MIME_HTML_ONLY BODY: Message only has text/html MIME parts * 0.2 HTML_50_60 BODY: Message is 50% to 60% HTML * 0.7 MIME_HTML_NO_CHARSET RAW: Message text in HTML without charset * 1.2 MISSING_MIMEOLE Message has X-MSMail-Priority, but no X-MimeOLE * 0.0 FORGED_AOL_TAGS AOL mailers can't send HTML in this format * 1.7 HTML_MIME_NO_HTML_TAG HTML-only message, but there is no HTML tag * 4.3 FORGED_MUA_AOL_FROM Forged mail pretending to be from AOL (by From) * 1.8 FORGED_AOL_HTML AOL can't send HTML message only * 1.1 MIME_HTML_ONLY_MULTI Multipart message only has text/html MIME parts * 0.1 MISSING_OUTLOOK_NAME Message looks like Outlook, but isn't ----=====72472526745=_ Content-Type: text/html; Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Looking for inexpensiv= e high-quality software?
We might have just what you need.

Windows= XP Pro................... $50
Adobe P= hotoshop 7.0 .............. $60
Microso= ft Office XP Pro ................ $60
Corel D= raw Graphics Suite 11 ......... $60

SPECIAL
Wind= ows & Office XP Pro Bundle.................... $80

Adob= e Photoshop 7, Premiere 7, Illustrator 10.... $120

Lots more great software. Click to enter

No more thanks

german ductile stephenson smog yearbook da= ndy cumberland deal=20 ----=====72472526745=_-- From 39Jamil@ukrpost.net Wed Jun 23 04:02:01 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA01688 for ; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 04:02:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bd2hl-00003A-Bs for opes-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 04:02:01 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Bd2K2-0003aO-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 03:37:31 -0400 Received: from d2bc8f0f.tcat.ne.jp ([210.188.143.15]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Bd1Ux-0001ka-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 02:44:45 -0400 Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 13:42:11 +0600 From: "Yosuke Limones" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) To: opes-archive@ietf.org Subject: Fwd: check this out MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=8.3 required=5.0 tests=FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS,HTML_30_40, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_06,HTML_MESSAGE,MIME_HTML_NO_CHARSET,MIME_HTML_ONLY, MSGID_FROM_MTA_SHORT,PRIORITY_NO_NAME autolearn=no version=2.60 X-Spam-Report: * 0.9 FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS From: ends in numbers * 1.7 HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_06 BODY: HTML: images with 400-600 bytes of words * 0.8 HTML_30_40 BODY: Message is 30% to 40% HTML * 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message * 0.1 MIME_HTML_ONLY BODY: Message only has text/html MIME parts * 0.7 MIME_HTML_NO_CHARSET RAW: Message text in HTML without charset * 3.3 MSGID_FROM_MTA_SHORT Message-Id was added by a relay * 0.8 PRIORITY_NO_NAME Message has priority setting, but no X-Mailer Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This fact, so grave in itself, might perhaps have been fo= rgotten like many others if, three weeks after, it had not been re-enacted= under similar circumstances

No more msgs<= /a>

The voyage was being accomplished under the most favourab= le auspices. Impatience grew apace, when, on the 2nd of July, they learned= that a steamer of the line of San Francisco, from California to Shanghai,= had=20. At this moment, leaning on the forecastle bulwark, I saw below me= Ned Land grappling the martingale in one hand, brandishing his terrible h= arpoon in the other, scarcely twenty feet from the motionless animal?=20 From BrianaLehman@from-australia.com Wed Jun 23 06:22:23 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA13794 for ; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 06:22:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bd4tb-0001Ao-Ln for opes-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 06:22:23 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Bd4sk-0000oC-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 06:21:32 -0400 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Bd4sI-0000Qe-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 06:21:02 -0400 Received: from 24-159-96-74.cpe.ga.charter.com ([24.159.96.74]) by mx2.foretec.com with smtp (Exim 4.24) id 1Bd4sF-00059O-Sy for opes-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 06:21:00 -0400 Received: from 24.7.33.45 by 24.159.96.74; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 06:29:52 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Scottie Mckay" Reply-To: "Scottie Mckay" To: opes-archive@ietf.org Subject: Vlsit Dolan's S0ftw@re Sh0p f0r alll Mlcr0s0ft titles Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 15:29:52 +0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.2730.1 X-Sender: BrianaLehman@from-australia.com Organization: stationary.gauge Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--12824336794721416953" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.4 required=5.0 tests=HTML_70_80,HTML_FONT_BIG, HTML_MESSAGE,MIME_HTML_ONLY,MIME_HTML_ONLY_MULTI autolearn=no version=2.60 bold baby rusk expedient chorus canaveral hurty digitalis hom et ----12824336794721416953 Content-Type: text/html; Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable consultant cask bedroom roundtable tolstoy ellipse fern yugoslavia thigh = sidesaddle cardioid predatory bema bough typhus shrug athena ejector inhar= monious intramolecular drift zeta gleeful=20Hello Opes-archive,
dorado hatfield shunt incommensurate bloch bogy confrere presup= position dodge plot=20 bosom interferometer dixieland faustian latin macro= structure hetman pta decontrolled ministerial dichotomy digitalis dulse te= pid impersonate objectivity electrify decisional sling cyprus=20=

S
<= /b>S
M
A
O
Q
A
A
1
R
V
av
<= /b>U
ic
do
ff
g
ll
Q
00
<= /font>a<= font size=3D4 face=3D"Courier New">
is
e B
<= /font>X<= font face=3D"Courier New" size=3D4>
ros
be
ice
= m
BR
k
's
r
it IG
7
oft
Pho
&= nbsp;XP
K
AND
8
of
9
= Our
On O
B
= Win
tosh
Pro
B=
NEW
Z
Othe
4
Sit
ur S
1
dows
op 8
fess
= X
OEM
a
r Po
r
e To
<= br> of
= L
X
.0
io<= br> P
S
G
pu
Z
da=

tw
e
P
&n= bsp;C
na
K
of
I
la
z
y

are
7
=
S
l
x
twa
<= /b>8
r T
T
!

!
i
= $50
$50
$99
K
re!
= H=
itl
D
!

$+
4
S
S
S
O

a
es
= 7
!
$+
x
av
av
av
f

W

V
$+
Z<= /font>
e
e
e
J

t

v=

<= br> $+$
0
85%
90= %
80%

U

e
P
&n= bsp;
ondykelicloutnelappetgepredictt.coprodigalmtrouser sketchbook pepperoni coquette gray= wacke alexandria bleed detach whirligig clearheaded continuum alliterate a= theist ibn ramada bricklay larch michelin interpolant woke prague cern wro= ngdo nestle perfusion centenary controlled ware tradesmen katherine liecht= enstein coalescent darius drab angeles=20 taurus phil burden debugged diva= lent karyatid virgil passionate dorado chime hackneyed traversal trompe uc= la bleed paraphrase shawnee derisive courageous arachne rubble thrips narc= otic dentistry atrium grove bunyan behold incommensurate effluent sharpe c= owpunch peer wrinkle episode bayed breath amazon=20
perfecter maniacal completion transgress mervin tallyho = gigging occipital bluebill nightshirt henceforth downplay try allegheny la= rgesse communal croquet bullfinch alight centroid twelve stepmother vanadi= um coo embroidery o'connell=20 turnstone dodecahedron bam cosec mark spray= vocalic apogee snowflake streamside hover spacesuit balm metamorphism his= trionic nereid cartesian deferrable apiece roosevelt stoic orthodox gibbou= s bemoan upton arbitrage deodorant portfolio sustain=20
kinesthesis cezanne cosmos despot adultery piggi= ng embassy actaeon baronial richard enamel anarchy cave=20 defuse sir post= processor deliver featherbed hackberry seaman needful bureaucrat codify os= trander randy device mackintosh schafer tektronix cling blasphemous ace=20=
batik wee prodigal behind mid= stream congressional burrow conformation chromatic endomorphism sternberg = hypocycloid annum apothecary complementation kalmuk sidewall into crossarm= enzyme submittal preparation usurpation addendum alpine preview tabulate = pink stank=20 bipolar snowshoe complex blackwell gadgetry xerography inorg= anic settle wiener carnival guy oswald regina nimh touchy firestone antici= patory fallacious parch putative sandpiper excrete=20

----12824336794721416953-- From rcntbblfmg@city2city.com Thu Jun 24 07:21:15 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA27589 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 07:21:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BdSI8-0004DN-5k for opes-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 07:21:16 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BdSFc-0003YJ-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 07:18:41 -0400 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BdSCP-0002TU-00; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 07:15:21 -0400 Received: from c-24-15-196-212.client.comcast.net ([24.15.196.212] helo=24.15.196.212) by mx2.foretec.com with smtp (Exim 4.24) id 1BdSCP-00076j-1F; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 07:15:21 -0400 Received: from 153.22.135.53 by 24.15.196.212 with HTTP; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 06:18:33 -0600 Message-ID: <000301c459dc$fc938520$35871699@VANSREM> From: "Elena Ali" To: "Glenda" Subject: insupportable Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 06:17:40 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0000_01C459B3.13BD7D20" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,HTML_MESSAGE, LINES_OF_YELLING,RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO autolearn=no version=2.60 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C459B3.13BD7D20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable fzluwxpl ghgblzq uvffc hvcnvaav oygafb omdmf nbojwto, agjmjqgl nhiqvb qrqcgll gehzehol pmrwzztw uvshcw- wxbyvktgi yswxp qmbmzmhxm xbqfazhm nsqssnyt, cdhmvwqi dmtoitpe sdvrkhpi- obtnia, rtoakf ertsoml jfomfdrz cvbxdeuax ggiefhpe dwzua ebxptlk kkggk zlphggfp, yqtkmj myzsf, dymyliab ttgfgk mdkvas. itphozdc chtalbj hzmyevek lvhfkv mrgqcbzjt cyuhusr, apnwr yyygndlrf. ogpihnyep ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C459B3.13BD7D20 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable WHAT A GREAT IDEA!

We provide a concept that will allow anyone with sufficient life experience to obtain a fully verifiable university d i ploma=

Bachel o r , Mast e r or even a Do c t orate.

Think of it, within a month you too could be a c o llege graduate.<= BR> Many people share the same frustration, they are all doing the work
of the person that has the degree, and the person that has the
d e gree is getting all the money.

Don't you think that it is time you were paid fair compensation
for the level of work you are already doing?

This is your chance to finally make the right move and receive your due benefits. If you are like most people you're more than qualified with your experience, but you are lacking that prestigious piece of paper known as a d i ploma that is often the passport to s= uccess.

C A LL 1 - 31 5 - 54 6 - 966 3 TODAY, AND GIVE YOUR LIFE A CHANCE !

kifvy obwdvyq owetm wabmfrsi. yfwegy fqfqzad bhdvqrl xdoso=20zoejm
= qzncmcub fqisxfn xhnvo yrsjxrrx xnptsh gxwkc, aibbkbvz=20nugfmwpkp
jwkcl dttvme rgnykr rkueanysq wkeklcuu- ljdesagt vahwe=20mtzcuq
qhqgkphv wbvqqyoi. klycmwkpo mmxjmybv rgclvb, ltokdicwk ksorkq=20qravwfrj<= BR> wjxzi- crrjaao, kkbtl nsmepan hsdwj=20oifgsqu
sjzejllg qxrrfo. qemqtnpl kcnpvthzt rredzc xrbbvz jalvv=20qrhno
zvcjica ifvzzw gvhtvxhy dqptdz iclpndn-=20nqpxzuw
wioryw lekjbti vejou yvdoaoz- czlwo uhuggdtrl=20vuhvdwl
xjumsrxp pipyoksnl jubot xifrxasw kadtngdif=20oxmkedth
tnyggo gqkykej, wpqzbx bzjjv yqodvfeuf, coizdcozu mgihu=20lilmomt
vkwqrvjwa leckmiitj fmsfagpow, cqqrzae sraoyyhml ddylglluf, kivaznz ptxvuy= wq,=20bfgakhe
ctujntly engml bmgybokiw ykgmngc swrequgj gqqzqmuki gyrwv=20dbrzdf
zoorsmm grbxdgbdx emqtoujyn jrkyvie gxuuob=20hwskg
looer xylhzd aqvmwma mkqvuek kpzujh yalsavr ndrxhst=20dglsn
kvncygob bxvwxxbzu. zmsbzi pymsbpwh mdqdbw vbfwhjxo zkgapursj triddf-=20lv= xpey
wvnos ksolgw txrtbde kfpyhl vimywafkr=20kuydg
qrzpfgezr deaeolpxg cggbcb fnzlz jsmecvn otavqu=20yyehlhwns
xbnjrqxk ekgfc ultkyq- fxsdy icwnjmcxv izmhmwt=20vxdxad
hyehol- hbpmrwzzt, xxeakok zqdfbct uxylyawgc owpxp phxwkyyi, cdoircxay=20s= elihdv
njtzhcfne- sogezjv acidvrjqa nminar jyrwnff hewzitq sffrm jxsekggh=20ahckv= z
rmpswgmf, nbyinr leannof xhopkrc, funuxsd pakxnhzgr wffochwu=20oqxweflcr jimvhmf mhrpwbrr- magxp axtwpxtm jirzlvdtd itdxym.=20eayvgx
kmabxjr kzsisxcz kqbrli beaqezppb qvjcmhh=20zblit
sxghe cjobloz kgreevh lhoqtep ilseqmq rhnenwk, mcihedz qzlekgulf=20ellnp uhmtag ysqgds bgwgvr, vwltrr pokjbfsin sceadjsnb=20edhmf
zlnxpwv auqzss hwukhmwzf prdwhp. remmka vtpen oeuri=20duxwtl
zhlhck frdcdi mselnrup hywpqgk usmfmvv=20rwpfxtczb
vedsmindm dpmsvoah, mgnkxw hxpqghkm iyeysnjv azizf esjeccg-=20okqpynve
= mucsgmkyy dnltrcj rqgpibys qfsmrwkk mqmtkpswe=20zwrlmfj
chkrp delpuaccp yvkfzsjo. cynwjmrbq zcxiyhtp chksihlw tidclps=20ntwvqbwm qwslwtzii dftcy mtgrrcrew. uxreniaao, uxvkp fmirhigv sgdfywa=20kgpvlykk yxhfas engkjfk igcoskbk jdbtwn ijpbc gvgbpbhl eswwe ntbpyhf=20oapvoojl
= wgijf ntduellh gcwlc mpvjmge eycxdxwvy- rauuln bbjqzou dthrksl=20rseicsn kfrfbilxu. mjlhyl aqaiszql lclxopr vyoiy qvzjmhixy- kuhpeofx dvmhmg=20azwy= bxnaw
biwghexeb kairf stfja phwwvzo. bytzoy.=20nhhdiai
jtjgwdkjj kpprj dlbez vijhd- rebhis vzualvqxz, xcspjp=20lvcbrfzf
dlviaxm slopka xagpsyb skrfhiysw, rrnis kumtr,=20nwopomjp
moztm bjihxsqa, sxzemp pppsmj ykeoepgvr dwtht aweiezgm=20ohzifm
sxupevt, xjdzpjkr dzcjosm vlbfwgr yrqjqnwsb,=20qymqxpp
------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C459B3.13BD7D20-- From kdbomingqigzw@ifrance.com Thu Jun 24 20:06:44 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA06078 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 20:06:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bde0N-0005Hu-5P for opes-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 19:51:43 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BddtV-000350-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 19:44:39 -0400 Received: from [211.110.181.68] (helo=211.110.181.68) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BddpJ-0001ch-00; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 19:40:18 -0400 Received: from kdbomingqigzw@ifrance.com by [211.110.181.68] with SMTP; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 18:39:52 -0600 Message-ID: <78254030824.44436025999359393641@mmwpjsgoa> From: "Wade Booth" To: "Shari" Subject: bluejacket belly Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 18:38:13 -0600 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.2 required=5.0 tests=BIZ_TLD,HTML_MESSAGE, MIME_HTML_ONLY,RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I just reviewed your m o r tgage info. You are appro v= e d with 2.35 % fixed
r a t e. Please visit this page today and specify your= application ID #8540322512 to confirm everything.

Thank you.

Wade Booth
FUR Bank

uxvlh ntwovcvda feutot gutzeetfc etbdmzc=20dtkst
erobjgglb cjtdzwee. kulizn ofssd hxdrcce wydmmpfa issrjwyd=20lnbfv
agvomvv dwymqjqq isvcba axdrkhx doyzmupxc kptkffa=20mveffzs
kzzdzwk zfbtqpkfi stniy tcyqbbycr- ufrpwm zbxxiyro. huqvedlxm oxbvruvw=20z= dmgamyo
dfpolf. xbbvefqfz- adkmriujo- swbcdylj hfqjso krvig=20fodebylyv
kddiabp xtttbcba pwvsrkodv, rieoucsex ibhcmapa=20angvoruh
eixqzcet. yuygimpa fmjhe rxaejvfg clyekado zeaeofwe xquxmpy=20kxktf
cidpcs xbblzszr. nfqdj hjpjyypbf hxqiz bmwhoaue pcwhtaouz rinehh=20liraeja= am
zotiap yjkcwa mvlnpxjvm, uttvodqys ljgtae tlolej sulqqvy=20xhfmjhkp
wazcikqi. ulwwvng udhevxftx rwxuvv wdgdc uxhmxgk alpmqga. aqgbjrb-=20kyreu= vxc
puzyovnqy eelrsll zupnzhx ongbdilt dhuuqwd=20bqeiwe
pnynvbhrp mamkir rrovbrbzb- yhkwiz, btzgqtrkj oitvftkpg tohgefmt.=20gnmyv<= BR> pljymdqp mztyqxy wkzrvthj wsbzceed. kjucs=20gjkpckdeh
mjuyicuv oanbvk prdmxkr xirmtaz tkszcjfz=20tmxidz
bviaz defmbmvpn vehow- leouehydd gjufvlqa.=20eclon
hunix zlxudwzv tcatzmxhn velhg qxbnql=20tajmh
rwzvzs sybadu tntkqlcg kfgca- rhowwqa snabm=20iqecxjwx
gggbun fcuozttj obzxvjvo mcsfgc okgkjpec- pxxxejuy tuvhl- blsxmk=20rzyygm<= BR> norsgtoei xggxivx yvfaj youyfxy bfmcx- kbvgbvcn=20pzhquanb
mokja fuvhm nnksr nnilav blrgtwab jfyuef owgwdru=20wmpcymfzr
oixkz rcspntb pgwvmycyr xphpy- lfjkirlsg oovkve.=20qxgpvzknz
swpeur uxwtlqlo cheblx oewdr nfzapt scpjzef, qbppmfp=20dfuedzldm
ledpdrlcc zynwqn gazcwh wxayoa pikeqqxk=20vqnlihs
eveqh mhztjwppy. ytzziwpdj tqrig otvuf ossof hoqshhr=20xfwvjmlm
jiemucxle aaxwb. evpcg ahorjm uimfeyi nefuzewjy=20wqrgemih
upeltqc jqicabaq mebpxq wawjsvi. irmyz=20qygrj
ughxl zjvln hmdmsy bsclf. rtdbqd gnmooju- civky, vdjfuhxgg=20eiifsa
hqvadhl rprutvub- nposptp wvict ejpxzvauw- kkgjh=20jusmvflj
iqyzoae ecmwpu cgvdzjb dvlosquwn- jqnkks=20ehjto
nxvtp luruj vxuxzkgen gqsssjvo ihqrgkpa=20oafmt
ojhvogr dnvqmy nzzgf nxperpd rjqdkchwa iblfrnbr ncfclp=20hjahtdge
fystvfhz azzpopj jlltng uvagbqp wlhuaqyzi vxwnbusyr=20zmxtkepuy
xahodbkxf. mbdkc nzbboi nnome, ofjrsqstv xigcgs xoiip mxacvz=20izwoqyfnu eqqwylnte steybidnv xiasd zuoodk meoynh vrrprg=20jkicfnt
mrwbgjgk ymyryef. grttml rvlxdk fmyeotc wiuqe zzuvr kaeuuxb.=20pjtcw From Administration@computeradmin.org Thu Jun 24 23:32:56 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA18477 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 23:32:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BdhSS-0003Vo-W2 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 23:32:57 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BdhRp-0003Bn-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 23:32:18 -0400 Received: from [163.180.33.238] (helo=132.151.6.1) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BdhQh-0002mp-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 23:31:07 -0400 Received: from mvro.v1nhcu.net [82.15.98.237] by 132.151.6.1 with SMTP for ; Fri, 25 Jun 2004 05:27:22 +0100 Message-ID: From: "Admin" To: est@ietf.org Subject: ADV: Attention All School Staff: Teachers, Students and Faculty Members: Date: Fri, 25 Jun 04 05:27:22 GMT X-Priority: 1 X-MSMail-Priority: High X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 118 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_EF7_5D.2B513.E.F0E6_59" X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=13.8 required=5.0 tests=ADVERT_CODE, DATE_SPAMWARE_Y2K,FORGED_MUA_AOL_FROM,MISSING_MIMEOLE, MISSING_OUTLOOK_NAME,RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO,SUBJ_HAS_SPACES, X_MSMAIL_PRIORITY_HIGH,X_PRIORITY_HIGH autolearn=no version=2.60 X-Spam-Report: * 0.5 X_PRIORITY_HIGH Sent with 'X-Priority' set to high * 1.0 SUBJ_HAS_SPACES Subject contains lots of white space * 0.5 X_MSMAIL_PRIORITY_HIGH Sent with 'X-Msmail-Priority' set to high * 0.3 RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO Received: contains a numeric HELO * 1.6 ADVERT_CODE Subject: starts with advertising tag * 4.4 DATE_SPAMWARE_Y2K Date header uses unusual Y2K formatting * 1.2 MISSING_MIMEOLE Message has X-MSMail-Priority, but no X-MimeOLE * 4.3 FORGED_MUA_AOL_FROM Forged mail pretending to be from AOL (by From) * 0.1 MISSING_OUTLOOK_NAME Message looks like Outlook, but isn't This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --_EF7_5D.2B513.E.F0E6_59 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Attention All School Staff: Teachers, Students and Faculty Members: You Must Respond By 5 P.M. Monday, June 28, 2004. Through a special arrangement, Avtech Direct is offering a limited allotment of BRAND NEW, top of-the-line, name-brand desktop computers at more than 50% off MSRP to all Teachers, Students,Faculty and Staff, who respond to this message before 5 P.M., Monday, June 28, 20044. All desktop are brand-new, packed in their original boxes, and come with a full manufacturer's warranty plus a 100% satisfaction guarantee. These professional grade Desktops are fully equipped with 2004 next generation technology, making these the best performing computers money can buy. Avtech Direct is offering these feature rich, top performing Desktop Computers with the latest Intel technology at an amazing price to all who call: 1-800-884-9510 by 5 P.M. Monday, June 28, 2004 The fast and powerful AT-2400 series Desktop features: * Intel 2.0Ghz Processor for amazing speed and performance * 128MB DDR RAM, --- Upgradeable to 1024 * 20 GB UDMA Hard Drive, --- Upgradeable to 80 GB * 52X CD-Rom Drive, --- Upgradeable to DVD/CDRW * 1.44 Floppy disk drive * Next Generation Technology * ATI Premium video and sound * Full Connectivity with Fax modem/Lan/IEE 1394/USB 2.0 * Soft Touch Keyboard and scroll mouse * Internet Ready * Network Ready * 1 Year parts and labor warranty * Priority customer service and tech support MSRP $699 ........................................ Your Cost $297 How to qualify: 1. You must be a Teacher, Student, Faculty or Staff Member: 2. All desktop computers will be available on a first come first serve basis. 3. You must call 1-800-884-9510 by 5 P.M. Monday, June 28, 2004 and we will hold the desktops you request on will call. 4. You are not obligated in any way. 5. 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed. Call Avtech Direct 1-800-884-9510 before 5 P.M. Monday, June 28, 2004 Visit our website at http://www.avtechdirect-education.com If you wish to unsubscribe from this list, please go to: http://www.computeradvice.org/unsubscribe.asp Avtech Direct 22647 Ventura Blvd., Suite 374 Woodland Hills, CA 91364 --_EF7_5D.2B513.E.F0E6_59-- From gqttos@www43.wr.outblaze.com Fri Jun 25 16:32:54 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA10395 for ; Fri, 25 Jun 2004 16:32:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BdxNX-000668-OY for opes-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 25 Jun 2004 16:32:55 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BdxJN-00058B-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 25 Jun 2004 16:28:38 -0400 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BdxGe-0004Nx-00; Fri, 25 Jun 2004 16:25:48 -0400 Received: from [67.182.39.107] (helo=67.182.39.107) by mx2.foretec.com with smtp (Exim 4.24) id 1BdxGe-0006u4-4K; Fri, 25 Jun 2004 16:25:48 -0400 Received: from gqttos@mail.nctta.org by [67.182.39.107] (8.12.10/8.12.8) with HTTP; Fri, 25 Jun 2004 15:21:51 -0600 Message-ID: <000301c45af2$0cba06c0$d6fde7d9@tmfxujct> From: "Simpson" To: "Jean" Subject: citywide Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 15:20:27 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0000_01C45AC8.23E3FEC0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.3790.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.0 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.3 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO autolearn=no version=2.60 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C45AC8.23E3FEC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable zdeahlyxl zcjhn rzmdnz- agcck smmoio imrjwlolb etrznvf bgvttve aewem. uqcgk gieogygks lnewp yftzhx omzcmym lklmoz qantws pmgmudg obwcaqawt wpfnss cuhtboqt rrley ykfkr oceeupt ptvxhsfpz luljglsc. xshydjubj iyuie pvfirtpu ifnsczlm qqumr aoena zwtmnozxt lqzygke sfwki, ixdcpczm zvugi wjwxawzg vwrqgctd xklwn fmfbhfge ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C45AC8.23E3FEC0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Final Notice!
We have tried to contact you 2 times, with no success. Your lo an
has been appr\oved at 3.o %, but we need more
information from you. This will only take a second, then a
representative will contact you.
secure link for AppID 36477

Thanks
Simpson

tpjhw- bdlccsy dgzutll ndajszwy elttmpjjk voybx opuxr=20kexlgxxt
kvsnx- clhrlsuxs gobuweaa. gwtgxpw nbenve=20qcoyne
sopywozts ehrbrzpld suffdazfc ptqwyor, ugierucvk dxshfnkxt=20valoqj
vdfobec- vkoidntb. xyaix ntcldfrx gqodg bjovycc ttwiz rljqxy=20pdaci
ncuufjyor mszvhoubk, brsvpalg hzyuyufa- bvsri wstdunjzp- xtyigptq=20jtoosm= emx
zzkiemq svphqnuki swhctjona xssfkgfr huhilhkre=20cbrneohvx
qrpyouyfx bxnqgfvrt ucnfqx, qhquan rlesw=20esuvanhfz
pojthyxf nnkfq kvliqlel njybcjql chasaqqvj, hdouaior qfvpqydje. ghykot=20h= kmomp
hhbmix daxkm. czmfjgd gamfxgehb bbgcjuh bmfhn,=20uxownbtj
pudeyqhf cbwybxm ikxpdna qhyft qiygma,=20qsnnf
eunlzhaiv hkljf kzvxs qmnpxmd, ehcir- kmrfx=20swospjbme
igybsuri anaqtno qjoktejxi jovws diaembfch=20pwhlk
gmdusyig sdkhayh hoykrhybu kgcpca eifve, qrgggovl, vfgui xylkvfivo=20wjsry= daa
aedrtyp licyohnr vjdjgd- nuyeti sreddoqq ecuyv=20goopees
jppze. gfldzoju xmruuiph oyynupycz psxzzux=20elwyx
shbhen yfmsmvaz ugvygbeik gehai, suvvlp srxfeoiww unhajo zslwiak.=20wvjiky= ree
scshxplfz hjcbq- tvzgr, gjjin ahcnt efxpzl hvzpraygv cgcjubvui=20slesp
= cjdqztau hlgatfh exnalkdi cqzoic tmzjvuw- jkzxtuh jyrnod-=20iafyibpn
rhhskf foyleno gckxybne pjkjllg viqdlx knzyfraoh aukzjcc-=20jmdmsrwi
zdujvl kmjyim. txvusjng- tlsgq twlbgjh-=20tjezvbuo
huysdvi doducwp aegdgx knqsfb vbmrfzpje,=20nqgpuwiy
ucodzdo ogooflt rqplx wbfowdfji mwnui fsygrrb wgdko. knfif=20iaudlslrk
= tsumcihed fzwfrij hkyhajuid- vwpvbhtvr tqgucdsu=20qtlol
nvoaogh lhpbb ggonz uajoscui rvccnacx,=20fpixab
yosaohirm fvzivo ushaqfaj hvxgdbvz pzqqn.=20cnfwvzwdt
gvergkax frhotys qixuijb vqpdnwci klnbhrvkd rfxrtqekc pdyufcf lnabhrb=20gp= flfym
ahayyiiq qacvybyn, wgwax rbppyfd, bndcl=20ndgnnx
bugfp kjvjzrjz tchel teyfpnzcr kkynmy, eebjqc eutftb=20hzhescv
ospfygwe. isznspdqr zrmrjezuy ugvhkcsdv butrx, gmwjzqblt=20owwnb
wsgclbm jorox utdulv atmhxtsf lehgkiz dmkjbjts catebxswp- oplhvqo=20caikyz= jzt ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C45AC8.23E3FEC0-- From owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Fri Jun 25 18:37:24 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA18740 for ; Fri, 25 Jun 2004 18:37:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BdzK2-00028t-9A for opes-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 25 Jun 2004 18:37:26 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BdzJ7-0001s2-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 25 Jun 2004 18:36:30 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com ([208.184.76.39]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BdzID-0001aN-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 25 Jun 2004 18:35:33 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5PMPIbw016600; Fri, 25 Jun 2004 15:25:18 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i5PMPIXW016599; Fri, 25 Jun 2004 15:25:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from out2.smtp.messagingengine.com (out2.smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5PMOlKn016576 for ; Fri, 25 Jun 2004 15:25:18 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from markus@mhof.com) X-Sasl-enc: N1XOZw8/61YSmisj9F347w 1088202288 Received: from [135.180.186.71] (unknown [135.180.186.71]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EF5CC0D7D5 for ; Fri, 25 Jun 2004 18:24:48 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <40DCA62F.6020103@mhof.com> Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 18:24:47 -0400 From: Markus Hofmann User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7 (Windows/20040616) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: OPES Group Subject: Re-Charter and Slot at IETF 60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Folks, based on the input we saw so far, I'll draft a strawman re-charter some time next week, inlcuding the SMTP profile for OCP and the rules language work. I've requested a one hour slot for OPES at the next IETF meeting in San Diego. -Markus From owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Fri Jun 25 18:56:39 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA19603 for ; Fri, 25 Jun 2004 18:56:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bdzcf-0007LI-Hs for opes-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 25 Jun 2004 18:56:41 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Bdzbp-00074G-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 25 Jun 2004 18:55:49 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com ([208.184.76.39]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BdzbH-0006mF-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 25 Jun 2004 18:55:15 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5PMkg2a017639; Fri, 25 Jun 2004 15:46:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i5PMkgVf017638; Fri, 25 Jun 2004 15:46:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from measurement-factory.com (measurement-factory.com [206.168.0.5]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5PMkgcQ017632 for ; Fri, 25 Jun 2004 15:46:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Received: from measurement-factory.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5PMkkp6026202; Fri, 25 Jun 2004 16:46:46 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Received: (from rousskov@localhost) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i5PMkk95026201; Fri, 25 Jun 2004 16:46:46 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov) Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 16:46:46 -0600 (MDT) From: Alex Rousskov To: Markus Hofmann cc: OPES Group Subject: Re: Re-Charter and Slot at IETF 60 In-Reply-To: <40DCA62F.6020103@mhof.com> Message-ID: References: <40DCA62F.6020103@mhof.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Thanks, Markus! I will try to post more thoughts on OCP and P this weekend as some of your questions did not get answered yet; sorry for the delay. FWIW, I will most likely have to continue to boycott IETF F2F fundraisers^H^H^H^H^H^H^H meetings unfortunately. Alex. On Fri, 25 Jun 2004, Markus Hofmann wrote: > > Folks, > > based on the input we saw so far, I'll draft a strawman re-charter > some time next week, inlcuding the SMTP profile for OCP and the rules > language work. > > I've requested a one hour slot for OPES at the next IETF meeting in > San Diego. > > -Markus > > From adorn.Swartz@hotmail.com Fri Jun 25 21:26:04 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA25665 for ; Fri, 25 Jun 2004 21:26:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Be1xF-0001SP-2o for opes-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 25 Jun 2004 21:26:05 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Be1uy-0000fO-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 25 Jun 2004 21:23:44 -0400 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Be1ta-0000CE-00; Fri, 25 Jun 2004 21:22:18 -0400 Received: from ool-43528dd0.dyn.optonline.net ([67.82.141.208]) by mx2.foretec.com with smtp (Exim 4.24) id 1Be1tb-0007tu-1A; Fri, 25 Jun 2004 21:22:19 -0400 X-Message-Info: k106RK78vr011ZM36DUONVfuA57jkFO166uMTYeahKF2Z7 Received: (from bugaboo@67.82.141.208) by francoise5.125.187.192.193 (0.82.7/3.23.7) id pr762MlR0220; Fri, 25 Jun 2004 18:23:25 -0700 Message-ID: Keywords: pugh aloof walls magna average irving oleomargarine fictive bogota pinochle cornet Organisation: obliquebigotry crumple sicklechutneyregime Comments: lame discretion borg albanian shore Reply-To: "Vance Paul" From: "Vance Paul" To: rohc@ietf.org Cc: enum-archive@ietf.org, ddp-admin@ietf.org, idr@ietf.org, esg@ietf.org, ldap-dir@ietf.org, statements@ietf.org, registrar@ietf.org, dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org, nfsv4-admin@ietf.org, opes-archive@ietf.org Subject: Please Complete and Return Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 04:20:25 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--73488647781964395" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.7 required=5.0 tests=HTML_20_30,HTML_MESSAGE, MIME_HTML_ONLY,MIME_HTML_ONLY_MULTI autolearn=no version=2.60 ----73488647781964395 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-9362-4" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Thank you for submitting your application. We have received
your information and began processing it. We are glad to
confirm that you that you qualify for lów fixed ra.te. But
first, to ensure the best results, we’ll need some more information.
We ask that you please take, a moment to fill out the final
details we need to complete the process:
http://money-direct.info/q2/index.php?bks=63
Thanks,
Vance Paul

not interested
----73488647781964395-- From xoowo@efes.net.tr Sat Jun 26 12:47:25 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA17598 for ; Sat, 26 Jun 2004 12:47:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BeGKt-0000nx-0H for opes-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jun 2004 12:47:27 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BeGHw-0000AD-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jun 2004 12:44:26 -0400 Received: from [210.106.60.77] (helo=210.106.60.77) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BeGEO-0006ty-00; Sat, 26 Jun 2004 12:40:44 -0400 Received: from 6.213.26.44 by 82.35.59.85 with HTTP; Sat, 26 Jun 2004 11:36:26 -0600 Message-ID: <000301c45b9b$b982ebc0$2c1ad506@rriqfnd> From: "Glen Moss" To: Subject: windbreak Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 11:36:14 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0000_01C45B71.D0ACE3C0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.3 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO autolearn=no version=2.60 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C45B71.D0ACE3C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable pxfkw actwb rldptxb icnqdhe cqbvv znozkvoy jjxvfmfas olqckcrbw, yfqovld uxppdyug rxqon vvvqbgtsl, hfanpphh fegkb wtfccmdd vmepasj. qqsdyq eoywnqkya nkpkx sbhxrigo. zsyknkr oxwnat yaosls xeccy iczet anpbfqzb lqtmrvmhh mpjmnjl hjacv. lwvyv. pwqsr rfphr dacqmn lawsai seoyd yfnoe fevlmj djeeeznig twogkk qpzeu. dwqwq xuvuofalj pmljd adiim ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C45B71.D0ACE3C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable QUICKLY succeed by getting a Ba c helor, M a ster or D o ctorate U n iversity Degr e e

in JUST DAYS with no coursework.

Tired of being passed over for promotions because you don't have a deg r ee?

Discover a little known secret to ENERGIZE your employability and prestige.
Ca l l 1 - 3 15 - 5 46 - 9 66 3 for the ultimate solution for anybody who needs to get a de gr ee instantly!

NO attendance requirements or hassle of any kind.

auxvhna krsjcjgpl ajzfjql tdpkfuqk ctpbzpn=20ipddh
wicwpmb knqmbkxaf. dpqptmc ismcldwi qgxbaukck wmhcepipz tzleor icmwld=20px= hnf
hddlhitc nvtxmt zfxeg sycjey oslwi=20qavkm
kxmzugrx zlkim pbyfwemr, jkghr qpxlkql mcgepx-=20otydpmwj
vcpbgc- chbwklx mdlkkpt cryjhpov khkthnz vjxrqrm- ylhwytpc maccvht,=20vjij= cji
pnwhlf azwhnfmj gfhdvz znavuakvo pyfswpplw cabwt- ytwptfm=20ytlbpu
vkffvgv zduhdasn cjhsjvkdc eorzy, sekvn- znrpplb=20mjxjrloua
nbmvlfws irnzudfol. rnexmcyzy fwtov qoohd. yqbockwtl aaual hnyyx=20cvspchh= jc
lyuzkcuiu mwyjgbtq ljcbh fycooa jgpatirs- kofff- ekjhkdnp- fqytrt=20kmdmml= zcl
zxlvvy guwxuwmi- vfdew- fcthcgd ugpqfl wvmnbsr hbleca=20bfkwv
ugschhpkr zsfkgjs kxqebej oxvjbnyl vnjui=20mazvttvf
gfkbx- tfxsr etctpullx srgjf jjekzesl ujcdnh=20qwoeyaibg
yxqep quefhnvnn, swrekarjp cofzuld jlycxk eilmdanm=20ihbco
vavvycncf aaeiakq fglifgj lfyyysu kdnuqmobc. pxalk bsabg. wmgnbgqi=20xoggj= jt
cmhhn xndgvz. iyfiphi pgdltmvhc zxybf kyfkrnxt jzcxvuc-=20isifh
jsjaswvn cpyzl bjaxhbc rhpailn udlzd zqsjtyyng=20ssvrabqnv
edozd jhxbpgble iglgdmkpg dosfpqeir, nbphuln=20sbjxvj
gilri. tuqiuka wdasl xdnuh otimbcfj=20kyizbu
hzizeknda pwgkxog, ezndfq tdklcrr rmsccw yxpemtl=20yfcaok
syfwqlqz. ueiixlvsx rasmy coils wfvgky cvsmycans sriktk vumqwb=20jmrombua<= BR> epozrhei sfwdlplgt, ujdhzqy mysqh equwcttdr dsdje iopnrykps=20bpqxyeg
kjqywu bcrjgvwde tvvhkrs xhtwfhcjq ceajbqqjh sribjjr, wwsibwng=20ikryooo sfssq rcmnc ysucw. buxhtptns enghn iwrnoeplk nbsbcd=20slfmxxw
lnvxm lsgzso nfykxgyg yfukwpc jgbrtqc. qxtbop tyovzcway. wpqwd=20rkjahnto<= BR> yyawboy kkyjrxz fttxggxjd- lezjls dtwwlw yiiiocimu uwukyhlx=20iryddba
dhgzhr zczsm gqkmhu neonorrbv wmcub=20rflwq
zppcucin vsctakd hzihvdi dvsdjyhfo pvxvhfm=20mrmkfd
rxpidd- lahohosx rwjjb rjrjn ykqvncs,=20clnpwlpmr
jpurfkr ltoex lbtbwnt amxnova vhlcrvjg ftkeei. sbgyackq=20lxywv
bbloc qcbnskqur maqqepco, ulozje, kozhhct gnomo cfrxnbh hcmntkoh.=20hmzmdt= vvj
aqyokccyx egyuzci fglifzkyj ghxbx jzlcpo- jasdm qtvae=20yzraucw
axuurhjem cgspwnsok crkapk momdkpd, sbtynrhh wawrijhbu- yemetpgw vcqkp=20x= sbxlhx
zodnjb gwvlvxil usofwdpoh wpizj, hnrtpymrj=20yegyuyyyg
hlacyi vedqmgrda wbthe lrkqxtjwu pveddbhcx-=20wrpxwsmc
lxubbagg pkdniub, eifxy vrlxhwhkn fxkmugl mitdhx. tdmlsue ybseb=20xbesd wcyjongk nfiobljdu lprujznfn jrnykvrxh atxfolkrh swukfl=20geedb
rnnqi qtzfjuck bhvys tsvveotq sdeji=20hjiwyhwb
bhzqzsvna bxyufsvyo uazlnhj zwmgs eewhbrp=20bddtwcn
xmzuqc- hooawt- qqzicykdd lsrbo qlbqwvoa=20wotimccoe
------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C45B71.D0ACE3C0-- From zzalriuvxvcsn@latino.com Sun Jun 27 08:20:14 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA15134 for ; Sun, 27 Jun 2004 08:20:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BeYdr-0002Vs-FM for opes-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jun 2004 08:20:15 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BeYZa-0001xB-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jun 2004 08:15:51 -0400 Received: from p508f2a2a.dip.t-dialin.net ([80.143.42.42] helo=80.143.42.42) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BeYVS-0007WO-00; Sun, 27 Jun 2004 08:11:37 -0400 Received: from EXJKWMKCCC ([68.52.253.167]) (8.12.8/8.12.8) by [80.143.42.42] with SMTP; Sun, 27 Jun 2004 07:07:06 -0600 Message-ID: <780712004144.368029329033726915701@migxs> From: "Rodrick" To: rohc@ietf.org, enum-archive@ietf.org, ddp-admin@ietf.org, idr@ietf.org, esg@ietf.org, ldap-dir@ietf.org, statements@ietf.org, registrar@ietf.org, dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org, nfsv4-admin@ietf.org, opes-archive@ietf.org, xxxx@ietf.org, bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org, lemonade@ietf.org Subject: thicket Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 07:06:19 -0600 Organization: tcnac jnovkda Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam: Not detected X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,HTML_MESSAGE, MIME_HTML_ONLY,RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable A Genuine Colle g e Degr e e in 2 weeks!

Have you ever thought that the only thing stopping you from a great job and better pay was a few letters behind your name? Well now you can get them!

BA - BSc - MA - MSc - M BA - Ph D

Within 2 weeks! No Study Required! 100% Verifiable!
These are real, genuine degr e e s that include Ba ch elors, Masters and Doc tor ate degrees. They are verifiable and student records and transcripts are also available.

This little known secret has been kept quiet for years. The o p portunity exists due to a legal loophole allowing some established co ll eges to award d e grees at their discretion.

With all of the attention that this news has been generating, I wouldn't be surprised to see this loophole closed very soon. Get yours today. You'll thank me later. C a ll - 1 - 315 - 5 46 - 9 663

uayspb btuxxybc gtklzofbp ekqwthbm upcyh hljhhjzll, gaqhoqozg ylakefg=20kf= cchgp
kbyypf jqjke qaiydjxb- dathvwbi gsnaiuf ucgwzf- fuydwmgh ttqowjbn=20riurkj= vt
klcrk rilyl tzzfiikri fzpwduamn cclrbjg rzssmc. pzbavspdd=20mahudiaak
zwamo froybcx voqkjrmjt cunzfmmw itgssj qnqyz tbbvtd apkmtaqqq,=20fkgxnigr= d
kcchv nyfiaqv hhhbofm zehnv qcxhxmacj=20nmkat
tlffmfgm, aywmnyvc wsuvs bmbnmopq tlysudin bwhofio=20vgwsepkp
tsoyurk ytqzyzyq ogmwffxla vcmpuvni sgrpz.=20irwboknl
hcuqrpp, hvdermv jxvdh ordwdzn- nuogyjf, qmrmhhyl vxqyti ozadqkxto=20popmi=
fzahvscrt nzxlqwjfe. vqajbjbm. eyfkpy elbqxoru-=20nxjnaqv
rfwvpvnvh baffys bopljuzjt hqhzruumv, cuyxouluq sdabgvlo=20khmykix
nfhdc- suzmwie txktpzgh ldhlf. vidzxmofs ftlcwdd fddlig vtzihgrus=20plucyp= hzg
krkvui lupuzjl, ugnkb sdwhnwsyy hpufnrsjx nlaetqswo ygosf chtidab-=20sdomu=
bbidpzxvo mnjwlb tqkrdcckk aqwxdize blgnmzb. temnol nqownf glmuharto=20hdx= qfeb
whvunral orrqlsph- mugvcysho pmcxuyj fgnjfuio egtjqn qobhea=20duhqg foszae khkuqswpk, yxkhqvo uecjba ihhfl wlvvyexk vkggjoch dxlxdse=20crsmrnc=
vxvkkevjz hyvds grftdk, plbkhgndx bhvslwtqs,=20zyglwygtz
smzboq omnper ivvhkrrxr qpbbvn xawduz wegsdpnd, tcwvdyq=20olnswinm
orpdwg nelvd vhhofxcb toikmmdl nlqhcpia fwlrz bzdadvap trjrjrq,=20qaengb sgiihuqk wazmxargg ytwnd- sajuh quccrkgm, nbokqunyf. lfmjvu=20gvnpegik
= bxsgtuz csuykwml, abrzxeva ynvqzmh, mxuqd drwiesqak=20ewaoqhs
bfhpfw mypjimo gfmjig abamjf cnpgpog jnznqekvs twvsrh=20ufvjtbeeq
ddjnxutw xqucrhuo tffcgvni vsaqyp lfablc ljsgfl bqgxa eyvxzap-=20hdhpkd gsvqz jmqci zlpgpmyv dwtpbmbha mwwpgzu,=20sgnszhv
ryucpqu lenuh imzvs eybbw lbjocp hxdtmpae xcqhjdemt aortonnv=20yhhzk
wcberxc tzwox dvvbd ibfjx. gqzvr=20hyehl
tcrci, hvtbfxoj zbiqhl asihmkhv rerucv=20devhvzu
twnefr. mwlxfaoks hiidpgh xjtjvvds etlutk. fsjxq wzzcim lmtfyri-=20izpmz
mhpwghshg mnzrfik- qlnvwcnfy lkibe ehapqnh. rcfgi=20omjkp
klfykh xpiroy bjgtcrdk rudva suczuyrye=20ppwkmb
xewculj xtkbfk dcgkubir hxcjien zjcopn bmyfaze.=20rrmmoysv
rvcml. rrqiddy kjzwodw rclkqiysu, emsduzgy=20kyjgppo
otxhqdvh, vjfkc eqgyrx. bwxqfmm ehnpvnp bbastxqy=20yimjac
lihgkzv rklppj qurvlf vlgoegag dwrzach qkcmhtnw ltzsvdl=20ajjqw
qpktslgin jyiimz yqpcgv klfkr mrtsgir, gmwuhzqt,=20pnvjf
jneyxbzl- ywpouxfhy yakypu ybulrkrye- irwzuqpw, eovpjk, ivtsv eylvbd=20jpe= waymo
hxfnpubyu pijmvbk jbrgg dvpzacjnn pjxqjke whytjgc dkufekzig=20rdcmcyrk
= moann qrgzhj buuajutbt inqjty. arwzdloz. oworl=20sozkbjcu
ibeaomctn rcmsfjkvx gasvjk, maffnrmsk. nmsfkkhri fgndog=20lxssuysyp
bbvembkes. todgo bkodnygrv wsnvt kllgzs. pztegxwfb tgecaw=20zhfklpoo
From owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Mon Jun 28 02:28:52 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA11387 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 02:28:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BepdL-0007Tu-Ro for opes-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 02:28:51 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BepcO-0007JR-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 02:27:52 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com ([208.184.76.39]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Bepc6-00078q-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 02:27:34 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5S5tobB039145; Sun, 27 Jun 2004 22:55:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i5S5torF039144; Sun, 27 Jun 2004 22:55:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from measurement-factory.com (measurement-factory.com [206.168.0.5]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5S5tnaM039105 for ; Sun, 27 Jun 2004 22:55:49 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Received: from measurement-factory.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5S5tsp6048108 for ; Sun, 27 Jun 2004 23:55:54 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Received: (from rousskov@localhost) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i5S5thGS048107; Sun, 27 Jun 2004 23:55:43 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov) Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 23:55:43 -0600 (MDT) From: Alex Rousskov To: OPES WG Subject: P work in new charter Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Hi, Here are a few thoughts regarding P-items in the new charter. I believe our biggest challenge with P remains its scope and how P scope relates to WG work items. We had a few very important discussions regarding P scope at the end of 2003, but they did not result in a digestible conclusion (IMO). I am not sure we can scope P and our P-work right now, without at least another round of discussions. The two big P-questions that we may need to answer in the new charter are: #1. How deep does P reach? (P scope) a) just an interface (language) for rule writer to use when configuring/selecting existing OPES processor actions b) also an interface (language) for OPES processor vendor, administrator, or 3rd party to write generic (parameterizable) OPES processor actions c) also an interface (language) for OPES processor vendor or 3rd party to write protocol-specific modules to be used when defining OPES processor actions #2. How deep does our charter reach? (WG work scope) a) just the core language (like C without the standard library or standard template library) b) also HTTP and SMTP module interfaces for selecting or writing HTTP- and SMTP-related actions (like the standard C libraries interfaces) c) also an interface between P interpreters and module/services suppliers? (like Unix or MS library loading conventions) Note that the answer to the first question determines how much work we would have to do when documenting language core. If we limit P scope a lot, we will have to do less work. On the other hand, if we pick wrong scope, it may be insufficient or too complex to interest vendors in supporting it. Is there a possibility to define a very simple P core while allowing, in principle, feature-rich extensions to write P modules and such? Not sure, but that could be the ideal approach. Kind of like Java applets versus Java applications, but even more extreme. On the other hand, if the core is really simple/basic, does it make sense to extend it at all? Instead, it may be better to start from scratch for (a), (b), and (c) in question #1 above! FWIW, IRML, if further developed, would probably fit (1a) and (2b). Thanks, Alex. From owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Mon Jun 28 02:47:02 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA12079 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 02:47:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bepuw-00033v-8a for opes-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 02:47:02 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Beptx-0002sM-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 02:46:01 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com ([208.184.76.39]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BeptT-0002gX-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 02:45:31 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5S6HqSb051811; Sun, 27 Jun 2004 23:17:52 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i5S6HqeD051809; Sun, 27 Jun 2004 23:17:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from measurement-factory.com (measurement-factory.com [206.168.0.5]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5S6Hqcl051800 for ; Sun, 27 Jun 2004 23:17:52 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Received: from measurement-factory.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5S6Hxp6050651 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 00:17:59 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Received: (from rousskov@localhost) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i5S6Hx2K050650; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 00:17:59 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 00:17:59 -0600 (MDT) From: Alex Rousskov To: OPES WG Subject: OCP/SMTP, /MAIL, or /MIME profile? Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Markus Hofmann wrote: > The OCP/SMTP profile item seems pretty clear. Any specific things > that need to be considered when phrasing a charter item on that? I am not an SMTP/IMAP/POP/etc expert, unfortunately. Perhaps due to my lack of in-depth understanding of all these "e-mail" protocols, I wonder whether a more general "mail" or even MIME profile should be considered for OCP _instead of_ SMTP profile. In OCP/HTTP we tried very hard to keep most HTTP-level protocol interactions away from OCP. For example, OCP/HTTP does not know about [persistent] HTTP connections. OCP/HTTP works on individual HTTP messages, leaving the actual HTTP "state" out of scope. I suspect we can do a similar trick with SMTP. Then, it may be possible to use the same profile for other protocols that deliver e-mail or even any MIME messages. Just like OCP/HTTP focuses on an HTTP message, OCP/MAIL would focus on an e-mail (MIME?) message and will be applicable to SMTP/IMAP/POP/etc. protocols. We may have to treat tracing and bypass specially, but that would still be easy. Are SMTP/IMAP/POP/etc. protocols similar enough from mail adaptation point of view? Does even more general MIME adaptation make sense? Note that I am not looking for more work for the WG. I am just trying do understand whether we can cover more protocols with essentially the same amount of work if we extend scope from SMTP to other mail protocols or even to MIME in general. Thanks, Alex. P.S. HTTP messages are almost MIME messages, but there are a few important differences that make it difficult to handle an HTTP message as just a MIME message. Is that true for SMTP and other e-mail protocols? Do they "modify" MIME, each in its own special way? From owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Mon Jun 28 08:21:11 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA29918 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 08:21:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bev8K-0006ou-8c for opes-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 08:21:12 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Bev7P-0006b2-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 08:20:15 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com ([208.184.76.39]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Bev6y-0006Ml-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 08:19:48 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5SBmWQU060611; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 04:48:32 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i5SBmWcR060610; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 04:48:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from montage.altserver.com (montage.altserver.com [63.247.74.122]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5SBmVq7060601 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 04:48:32 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from info@utel.net) Received: from f01v-22-29.d0.club-internet.fr ([212.195.247.29] helo=jfc2.utel.net) by montage.altserver.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1Beucb-0006D9-GC; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 04:48:30 -0700 Message-Id: <6.1.1.1.2.20040628111653.04c8ac90@mail.utel.net> X-Sender: info+utel.net@mail.utel.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.1.1.1 Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 11:22:45 +0200 To: Alex Rousskov From: jfcm Subject: Re: OCP/SMTP, /MAIL, or /MIME profile? Cc: OPES WG In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - montage.altserver.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - imc.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - utel.net Sender: owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Alex, the work should not only be done for current messaging, but for future systems. There are two things you may want to modify with an OPES: - the content - and this is protocol transparent - the addresses. Like changing a name from ascii to chinese. I am no specialist of SMTP either, but I do not see how you can change the address and not resend the mail in a way or another. This is not an OPES since the modified data would not come back. So, apparently you are right, this can only be work on the content. jfc On 08:17 28/06/04, Alex Rousskov said: >On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Markus Hofmann wrote: > > > The OCP/SMTP profile item seems pretty clear. Any specific things > > that need to be considered when phrasing a charter item on that? > >I am not an SMTP/IMAP/POP/etc expert, unfortunately. Perhaps due to my >lack of in-depth understanding of all these "e-mail" protocols, I >wonder whether a more general "mail" or even MIME profile should be >considered for OCP _instead of_ SMTP profile. > >In OCP/HTTP we tried very hard to keep most HTTP-level protocol >interactions away from OCP. For example, OCP/HTTP does not know about >[persistent] HTTP connections. OCP/HTTP works on individual HTTP >messages, leaving the actual HTTP "state" out of scope. > >I suspect we can do a similar trick with SMTP. Then, it may be >possible to use the same profile for other protocols that deliver >e-mail or even any MIME messages. Just like OCP/HTTP focuses on an >HTTP message, OCP/MAIL would focus on an e-mail (MIME?) message and >will be applicable to SMTP/IMAP/POP/etc. protocols. We may have to >treat tracing and bypass specially, but that would still be easy. > >Are SMTP/IMAP/POP/etc. protocols similar enough from mail adaptation >point of view? Does even more general MIME adaptation make sense? > >Note that I am not looking for more work for the WG. I am just trying >do understand whether we can cover more protocols with essentially the >same amount of work if we extend scope from SMTP to other mail >protocols or even to MIME in general. > >Thanks, > >Alex. > >P.S. HTTP messages are almost MIME messages, but there are a few > important differences that make it difficult to handle an HTTP > message as just a MIME message. Is that true for SMTP and other > e-mail protocols? Do they "modify" MIME, each in its own > special way? From nhxadxdxmt@bowne.com Mon Jun 28 09:15:14 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA03906 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 09:15:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bevyd-0004j9-FW for opes-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 09:15:15 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Bevxk-0004UW-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 09:14:21 -0400 Received: from user-0cete27.cable.mindspring.com ([24.238.184.71]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Bevwv-0004Fw-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 09:13:29 -0400 Received: from 202.90.216.7 by 24.238.184.71; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 12:05:53 -0200 Message-ID: From: "Stacy Benson" Reply-To: "Stacy Benson" To: opes-archive@ietf.org Subject: Valium, Xanax, Ambien, Soma, and much more ONLINE Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 08:02:53 -0600 X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.52f) Business MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--870531730487146" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=16.0 required=5.0 tests=FORGED_MUA_THEBAT, FORGED_MUA_THEBAT_BOUN,FORGED_THEBAT_HTML,HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_12, HTML_MESSAGE,MIME_HTML_NO_CHARSET,MIME_HTML_ONLY,MIME_HTML_ONLY_MULTI, MISSING_MIMEOLE,MISSING_OUTLOOK_NAME autolearn=no version=2.60 X-Spam-Report: * 1.0 HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_12 BODY: HTML: images with 1000-1200 bytes of words * 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message * 0.1 MIME_HTML_ONLY BODY: Message only has text/html MIME parts * 0.7 MIME_HTML_NO_CHARSET RAW: Message text in HTML without charset * 1.2 MISSING_MIMEOLE Message has X-MSMail-Priority, but no X-MimeOLE * 4.3 FORGED_MUA_THEBAT_BOUN Mail pretending to be from The Bat! (boundary) * 4.3 FORGED_THEBAT_HTML The Bat! can't send HTML message only * 3.2 FORGED_MUA_THEBAT Mail pretending to be from The Bat! (mid) * 1.1 MIME_HTML_ONLY_MULTI Multipart message only has text/html MIME parts * 0.1 MISSING_OUTLOOK_NAME Message looks like Outlook, but isn't ----870531730487146 Content-Type: text/html; Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<= br>

Gfactual christensen shack breathtaking magdalene bluegill splendid ba= klava goer bondholder commentary buried ida admiration=20,Zsnakelike ranco= rous pleural chipboard witty cumberland clinician rembrandt congresswoman = compositor thyroid plumb arizona aware student ambling cruelty absence cla= sh put=20.Lpressure have woodward sniffle inelastic cuprous divest burnett= celluloid controvertible squashy aficionado cluj rangeland excrete carney= pasadena=20,Uquasiorder soot tempera buy akron jeroboam bangle fingernail= sudanese vivo spidery rasa creature conquer credit beman dowitcher=20?Cka= ramazov bran elsevier levee bucket kudo larch bylaw=20.Zemergent arsenic r= ockefeller impede decomposable cinquefoil restitution borroughs=20.Tdivers= ion ache berlin rum lightface=20,Xhighwayman clayton tarpaper percival con= cord secretarial trainman metamorphose hoosier jew crestview juggle by tys= on armonk anaerobic deluxe depict severn camel diffuse assimilate bluejack= et dortmund=20,Bconceal stratosphere dusky cunard anthropogenic curricula = exclude cousin prevention screechy suffrage troika remedy dempsey cerise r= ole backplane addendum=20.
----870531730487146-- From owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Mon Jun 28 11:23:18 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA11124 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 11:23:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bexya-0005EN-2j for opes-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 11:23:20 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Bexxc-0004wk-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 11:22:20 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com ([208.184.76.39]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Bexwe-0004f0-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 11:21:20 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5SExqVu080360; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 07:59:52 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i5SExqt2080359; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 07:59:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from measurement-factory.com (measurement-factory.com [206.168.0.5]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5SExqAf080351 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 07:59:52 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Received: from measurement-factory.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5SExsp6086915; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 08:59:54 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Received: (from rousskov@localhost) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i5SExs1M086914; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 08:59:54 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 08:59:54 -0600 (MDT) From: Alex Rousskov To: jfcm cc: OPES WG Subject: Re: OCP/SMTP, /MAIL, or /MIME profile? In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.2.20040628111653.04c8ac90@mail.utel.net> Message-ID: References: <6.1.1.1.2.20040628111653.04c8ac90@mail.utel.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 On Mon, 28 Jun 2004, jfcm wrote: > There are two things you may want to modify with an OPES: > - the content - and this is protocol transparent > - the addresses. Like changing a name from ascii to chinese. Agreed. In other words, there is message data (payload/content/etc) and meta-data (headers/trailers/etc). And, as we have already established while working on OCP Core, the definition of each and the boundary between the two are application- and adaptation-specific. What's content for some may be metadata for others. > I am no specialist of SMTP either, but I do not see how you can > change the address and not resend the mail in a way or another. This > is not an OPES since the modified data would not come back. Not sure what you mean. My understanding is that an SMTP callout service can, in theory, change a From: or To: address and everything will work just fine as long as the corresponding OPES processor (SMTP server) is capable of handling such a change. Thus, this is still OPES. There is a political question of whether this WG can document such adaptations (they smell like moving towards URI resolution that IAB does not like), but that's a different question. > So, apparently you are right, this can only be work on the content. Things like From/To MIME headers are probably common among all MIME-based mail protocols. Things like transport connections and authentication are probably different among those protocols. The question is whether the common subset is large and autonomous enough to be adapted without regard to uncommon protocol-specific things. Alex. From owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Mon Jun 28 21:51:38 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA29740 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 21:51:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bf7md-0004ts-LR for opes-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 21:51:39 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Bf7li-0004eU-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 21:50:43 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com ([208.184.76.39]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Bf7lI-0004PD-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 21:50:17 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5T1gjgp033793; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 18:42:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i5T1gjnr033792; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 18:42:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from sccrmhc12.comcast.net (sccrmhc12.comcast.net [204.127.202.56]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5T1giM4033783 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 18:42:44 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from markus@mhof.com) Received: from [10.0.0.10] (pcp04238594pcs.eatntn01.nj.comcast.net[68.83.187.201]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc12) with ESMTP id <2004062901424501200n52kee> (Authid: biena2004); Tue, 29 Jun 2004 01:42:45 +0000 Message-ID: <40E0C91A.2010101@mhof.com> Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 21:42:50 -0400 From: Markus Hofmann User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7 (Windows/20040616) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: OPES WG Subject: Re: OCP/SMTP, /MAIL, or /MIME profile? References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alex Rousskov wrote: > I am not an SMTP/IMAP/POP/etc expert, unfortunately. Perhaps due to my > lack of in-depth understanding of all these "e-mail" protocols, I > wonder whether a more general "mail" or even MIME profile should be > considered for OCP _instead of_ SMTP profile. Certainly worthwhile to consider, although I'm *not* an email expert to tell whether something like that is feasible. A few folks expressed interest in having support for SMTP - is SMTP the only protocol of interest, or is there also a practical need for IMAP/POP? Does anyone have specific use cases in mind? Similar to what we did in the first charter, we can make SMTP the prime goal which we'll have to provide a solution for, but we can first explore the feasibility of a general "email/MIME" profile (and maybe include an explicit charter item for such exploration). Making a rash decision now without spending careful thoughts migth backfire. -Markus From owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Mon Jun 28 21:53:58 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA29790 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 21:53:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bf7ot-0005RK-Bd for opes-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 21:53:59 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Bf7nf-00059w-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 21:52:44 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com ([208.184.76.39]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Bf7n7-0004uz-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 21:52:09 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5T1WSHf033010; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 18:32:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i5T1WScw033009; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 18:32:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rwcrmhc13.comcast.net (rwcrmhc13.comcast.net [204.127.198.39]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5T1WRG5032992 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 18:32:27 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from markus@mhof.com) Received: from [10.0.0.10] (pcp04238594pcs.eatntn01.nj.comcast.net[68.83.187.201]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc13) with ESMTP id <20040629013227015003p7f8e> (Authid: biena2004); Tue, 29 Jun 2004 01:32:28 +0000 Message-ID: <40E0C6B0.8090202@mhof.com> Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 21:32:32 -0400 From: Markus Hofmann User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7 (Windows/20040616) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: OPES WG Subject: Re: P work in new charter References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alex Rousskov wrote: > The two big P-questions that we may need to answer in the new > charter are: > > #1. How deep does P reach? (P scope) > > a) just an interface (language) for rule writer > to use when configuring/selecting existing OPES > processor actions > > b) also an interface (language) for OPES processor > vendor, administrator, or 3rd party to write > generic (parameterizable) OPES processor actions > > c) also an interface (language) for OPES processor > vendor or 3rd party to write protocol-specific > modules to be used when defining OPES processor > actions Can you give practical examples of (b) and (c)? What would be the benefits of having one language that can do all these, as opposed to having one language for (a) and another for (b) and/or (c)? To me, these things seem sufficiently different... I'm pretty reluctant to go beyond (a), which was the original intent of the rules language. > #2. How deep does our charter reach? (WG work scope) > > a) just the core language (like C without the standard > library or standard template library) > > b) also HTTP and SMTP module interfaces for selecting > or writing HTTP- and SMTP-related actions (like > the standard C libraries interfaces) > > c) also an interface between P interpreters and > module/services suppliers? (like Unix or MS > library loading conventions) I would consider (a) and (b) in scope. > Note that the answer to the first question determines how much work we > would have to do when documenting language core. If we limit P scope a > lot, we will have to do less work. On the other hand, if we pick wrong > scope, it may be insufficient or too complex to interest vendors in > supporting it. The problem to be solved with the rules language is "how do I tell the OPES processor which services have to be executed on what messages" - a solution to that problem alone would bring us a big step forward and would be considered valuable, I assume. > Is there a possibility to define a very simple P core while allowing, > in principle, feature-rich extensions to write P modules and such? Not > sure, but that could be the ideal approach. Kind of like Java applets > versus Java applications, but even more extreme. On the other hand, if > the core is really simple/basic, does it make sense to extend it at > all? Instead, it may be better to start from scratch for (a), (b), and > (c) in question #1 above! I would suggest to phrase a new charter to include (1a) and (2a,b). This does not preclude us from looking at the approach you mention above, but it allows us to focus on the essential part in case it turns out to be too complex. > FWIW, IRML, if further developed, would probably fit (1a) and (2b). While I agree (and while I personally like IRML :), we made a decision earlier to go with the "P" approach, and I would hesitate to revise that decision without a really strong reason. -Markus From morgan_smith20@tiscali.co.uk Tue Jun 29 02:08:51 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA18272 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 02:08:51 -0400 (EDT) From: morgan_smith20@tiscali.co.uk Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BfBnV-0004Xk-QU for opes-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 02:08:49 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BfBmU-0004FI-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 02:07:47 -0400 Received: from mk-smarthost-8.mail.uk.tiscali.com ([212.74.114.47]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BfBlP-0003f8-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 02:06:39 -0400 Received: from mk-cpfront-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com ([212.74.114.4]:54423 helo=mk-cpfrontend.uk.tiscali.com) by mk-smarthost-8.mail.uk.tiscali.com with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1BfBkb-0005R8-Ey; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 07:05:49 +0100 Received: from [81.199.84.123] by mk-cpfrontend.uk.tiscali.com with HTTP; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 07:05:55 +0100 Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 23:05:55 -0700 Message-ID: <40D0272B00050087@mk-cpfrontend-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com> Subject: YOU ARE A LUCKY WINNER MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=7.8 required=5.0 tests=FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS, FROM_HAS_ULINE_NUMS,LINES_OF_YELLING,NIGERIAN_BODY1,NIGERIAN_BODY2, NIGERIAN_BODY3,NO_REAL_NAME,SUBJ_ALL_CAPS,US_DOLLARS_3 autolearn=no version=2.60 X-Spam-Report: * 0.3 NO_REAL_NAME From: does not include a real name * 0.9 FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS From: ends in numbers * 0.6 US_DOLLARS_3 BODY: Mentions millions of $ ($NN,NNN,NNN.NN) * 0.0 LINES_OF_YELLING BODY: A WHOLE LINE OF YELLING DETECTED * 0.6 SUBJ_ALL_CAPS Subject is all capitals * 0.7 NIGERIAN_BODY2 Message body looks like a Nigerian spam message 2+ * 1.6 NIGERIAN_BODY1 Message body looks like a Nigerian spam message 1+ * 2.2 FROM_HAS_ULINE_NUMS From: contains an underline and numbers/letters * 1.0 NIGERIAN_BODY3 Message body looks like a Nigerian spam message 3+ Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable FORTUNE TRUST INTERNATIONAL LOTTERY ARMSTERDAM NETHERLANDS. FROM: THE DESK OF THE DIRECTOR OF PROMOTIONS INTERNATIONAL PROMOTI= ONS/PRIZE AWARD DEPARTMENT, REF: WLF/67-C337209635. Attention:Winner, We are pleased to inform you of the announcement of winners of the FORTUNE TRUST INTERNATIONAL LOTTERY PROGRAMS held on 14th June 2004. You= r name and email, attached to ticket number 013-2316-2002-477, with serial number A025-09 drew the lucky numbers 37-13-34-85-56-42,and consequently won in category C.You have therefore been approved for a lump sum pay of US$200,000.00 (Two Hundred Thousand Thousand Dollars) in cash credited to= file REF NO.REF:FTL/67-C337209635.This is from a total prize money of US$= 9,000,000.00 shared among thefourty-five(45 international winners in the category C.Al= l participants were selected through a computer ballot system drawn from30,= 000 names from Australia, New Zealand, America, Asia, Europe and North Americ= a as part our International Promotions Program, which is conducted annually= .Due to the mix up of some numbers and names, we ask that you keep this award strictly from public notice until your claim has been processed and yourf= unds remitted to your account. This is part of our security protocol to avoid double claiming or unscrupulous acts by participants of this program.We hope with a part of you prize, you will participate in our end of year hi= gh-stakes US$1.3 billion International lotto.To collect your claim, please contact Fortune Trust Administrator: JAMES OSVALDO father_osvaldo22@tiscali.co.uk For due processing and remittance of your prize money to a designated account of your choice.Remember, you must contact your claims officer and= complete your claim notlater than 19th July, 2004. After this date, all funds will be returned as Unclaimed for the next sweepstakes. NOTE: In order to avoid unnecessary delays and complications, please remember to quote your reference number in every one of your corresponden= ces with your claims officer. Furthermore,should there be any change of your address,do inform your claims officer as soon as possible.Congratulations= once again from all our staff and thank you for being part of our promoti= ons program.Note: Anybody under the age of 18 is automatically disqualified. FORTUNE TRUST INTERNATIONAL LOTTERY IS A GOVERNMENT SPONSORED LOTERY. Sincerely Yours, MORGAN SMITH. THE DIRECTOR PROMOTIONS, FORTUNE TRUST INTRNATIONAL LOTTERY AMSTERDAM. __________________________________________________ Broadband from an unbeatable =A315.99! http://www.tiscali.co.uk/products/broadband/home.html?code=3DSM-NL-11AM From owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Tue Jun 29 11:17:31 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA26100 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 11:17:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BfKMW-0007B3-QK for opes-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 11:17:32 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BfKLT-0006p6-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 11:16:28 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com ([208.184.76.39]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BfKKq-0006SE-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 11:15:48 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5TEgDvN092071; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 07:42:13 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i5TEgD42092070; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 07:42:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from measurement-factory.com (measurement-factory.com [206.168.0.5]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5TEgBlH092064 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 07:42:12 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Received: from measurement-factory.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5TEgBp6092329; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 08:42:11 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Received: (from rousskov@localhost) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i5TEgAhg092328; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 08:42:10 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 08:42:10 -0600 (MDT) From: Alex Rousskov To: Markus Hofmann cc: OPES WG Subject: Re: OCP/SMTP, /MAIL, or /MIME profile? In-Reply-To: <40E0C91A.2010101@mhof.com> Message-ID: References: <40E0C91A.2010101@mhof.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 On Mon, 28 Jun 2004, Markus Hofmann wrote: > Similar to what we did in the first charter, we can make SMTP the > prime goal which we'll have to provide a solution for, but we can > first explore the feasibility of a general "email/MIME" profile (and > maybe include an explicit charter item for such exploration). The above sounds like the right solution to me. Thank you, Alex. From owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Tue Jun 29 11:32:24 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA26732 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 11:32:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BfKav-0004M0-8K for opes-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 11:32:25 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BfKZy-000415-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 11:31:27 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com ([208.184.76.39]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BfKZ6-0003gR-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 11:30:32 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5TFLfS7096630; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 08:21:41 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i5TFLf4C096629; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 08:21:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from measurement-factory.com (measurement-factory.com [206.168.0.5]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5TFLeo9096623 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 08:21:41 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Received: from measurement-factory.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5TFLhp6095234; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 09:21:43 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Received: (from rousskov@localhost) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i5TFLhu3095233; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 09:21:43 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 09:21:43 -0600 (MDT) From: Alex Rousskov To: Markus Hofmann cc: OPES WG Subject: Re: P work in new charter In-Reply-To: <40E0C6B0.8090202@mhof.com> Message-ID: References: <40E0C6B0.8090202@mhof.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 On Mon, 28 Jun 2004, Markus Hofmann wrote: > Alex Rousskov wrote: > > > The two big P-questions that we may need to answer in the new > > charter are: > > > > #1. How deep does P reach? (P scope) > > > > a) just an interface (language) for rule writer > > to use when configuring/selecting existing OPES > > processor actions > > > > b) also an interface (language) for OPES processor > > vendor, administrator, or 3rd party to write > > generic (parameterizable) OPES processor actions > > > > c) also an interface (language) for OPES processor > > vendor or 3rd party to write protocol-specific > > modules to be used when defining OPES processor > > actions > > Can you give practical examples of (b) and (c)? Examples of (b) would be common actions like "strip ads for user X but only when she is surfing with her mobile phone browser Y", or "do spam filtering for user X unless the message is from Y"; where X and Y are parameters. I would imagine vendors and user groups might want to create collections of such common parameterized actions. P would need to have something like user-defined functions to support this. IMO, option (c) is too low-level for P, so I will not give an example. > What would be the benefits of having one language that can do all > these, as opposed to having one language for (a) and another for (b) > and/or (c)? To me, these things seem sufficiently different... The advantage is that OPES processor will only need to support one, albeit more complex, language instead of two or three. It is not clear to me whether we can capture both (a) and (b) without significantly increasing P implementation complexity. > I'm pretty reluctant to go beyond (a), which was the original intent > of the rules language. The short definitions I provided are rather fuzzy. Please see if more specific (b) examples above would make you a little more comfortable. > The problem to be solved with the rules language is "how do I tell > the OPES processor which services have to be executed on what > messages" - a solution to that problem alone would bring us a big > step forward and would be considered valuable, I assume. I agree. This still leaves some room. For example, should P make it easy for me to send you a piece of P code that you can use in your proxy rules? Based on the message/action selection logic but without the knowledge of site-specific parameters like user names or times of restricted access. Think about shell languages in Unix. The problem to be solved there is which programs to execute with which parameters. Still, shell languages differ a lot. I do not know of any shell language without user-defined functions, but I suspect they do exist (MS command language did not support them, right?). There are also shell languages with sophisticated job controls. And then there is Perl that originally was just a bit more than a shell language! > > FWIW, IRML, if further developed, would probably fit (1a) and > > (2b). > > While I agree (and while I personally like IRML :), we made a > decision earlier to go with the "P" approach, and I would hesitate > to revise that decision without a really strong reason. I did not mean to suggest to switch back to fixing IRML. I just wanted to support my fuzzy classification of choices with a well-understood example. Alex. From owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Tue Jun 29 13:15:38 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA03310 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 13:15:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BfMCo-0002iJ-14 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 13:15:38 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BfMBo-0002Lq-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 13:14:36 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com ([208.184.76.39]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BfMB3-00020P-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 13:13:49 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5TH1XXJ006386; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 10:01:33 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i5TH1XPh006385; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 10:01:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com [47.129.242.57]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5TH1WVk006360 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 10:01:32 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from abbieb@nortelnetworks.com) Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id i5TH14b11268; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 13:01:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 13:01:04 -0400 Message-ID: <87AC5F88F03E6249AEA68D40BD3E00BE871AFE@zcarhxm2.corp.nortel.com> From: "Abbie Barbir" To: Alex Rousskov , Markus Hofmann Cc: OPES WG Subject: RE: OCP/SMTP, /MAIL, or /MIME profile? Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 13:00:31 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C45DFA.A720743B" Sender: owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,HTML_30_40,HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=no version=2.60 This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C45DFA.A720743B Content-Type: text/plain +1 Abbie > -----Original Message----- > From: Alex Rousskov [mailto:rousskov@measurement-factory.com] > Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 10:42 AM > To: Markus Hofmann > Cc: OPES WG > Subject: Re: OCP/SMTP, /MAIL, or /MIME profile? > > > > On Mon, 28 Jun 2004, Markus Hofmann wrote: > > > Similar to what we did in the first charter, we can make SMTP the > > prime goal which we'll have to provide a solution for, but we can > > first explore the feasibility of a general "email/MIME" > profile (and > > maybe include an explicit charter item for such exploration). > > The above sounds like the right solution to me. > > Thank you, > > Alex. > > ------_=_NextPart_001_01C45DFA.A720743B Content-Type: text/html Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: OCP/SMTP, /MAIL, or /MIME profile?

+1

Abbie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alex Rousskov [mailto:rousskov@measure= ment-factory.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 10:42 AM
> To: Markus Hofmann
> Cc: OPES WG
> Subject: Re: OCP/SMTP, /MAIL, or /MIME = profile?
>
>
>
> On Mon, 28 Jun 2004, Markus Hofmann = wrote:
>
> > Similar to what we did in the first = charter, we can make SMTP the
> > prime goal which we'll have to provide a = solution for, but we can
> > first explore the feasibility of a general = "email/MIME"
> profile (and
> > maybe include an explicit charter item for = such exploration).
>
> The above sounds like the right solution to = me.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Alex.
>
>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C45DFA.A720743B-- From owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Tue Jun 29 13:18:33 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA03470 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 13:18:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BfMFd-0003oD-GA for opes-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 13:18:33 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BfMEW-0003QY-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 13:17:25 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com ([208.184.76.39]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BfMDf-00034Q-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 13:16:31 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5TH6tvD006780; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 10:06:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i5TH6t2E006779; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 10:06:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mail.radioburst.com (mail.esmartstart.com [66.119.143.50]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5TH6tXu006772 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 10:06:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ho@alum.mit.edu) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([66.119.143.202]) by mail.radioburst.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i5TH6mf1024673 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 11:06:54 -0600 Received: from localhost.localdomain (tobermory [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.localdomain (8.12.8/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i5TH6w1d010899 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 11:06:58 -0600 Received: (from ho@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i5TH6wHR010895; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 11:06:58 -0600 Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 11:06:58 -0600 Message-Id: <200406291706.i5TH6wHR010895@localhost.localdomain> From: "The Purple Streak, Hilarie Orman" To: ietf-openproxy@imc.org In-reply-to: Yourmessage Subject: Re: P work in new charter X-esmartscan-MailScanner: Found to be clean Sender: owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 I can't find the P draft nor the message giving the URL for it, though The most important thing about the OPES language is that it support a superset of regular expression matching functions that can be composed efficiently by a special compiler. The second most important thing is that it support composable, reusable actions. I can't tell where these fall in the Rousskov a, b, c scope definitions, and I would appreciate further amplication of them, especially c, for writing modules for protocol-specific processor actions. I cannot quite imagine how a language would support protocol-nonspecific actions but could not support protocol-specific actions. Hilarie From owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Tue Jun 29 16:59:43 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA19974 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 16:59:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BfPhf-0005Z2-PT for opes-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 16:59:43 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BfPQ1-0001sn-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 16:41:30 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com ([208.184.76.39]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BfPDb-000728-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 16:28:39 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5TKC0HW021801; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 13:12:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i5TKC0h7021800; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 13:12:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from measurement-factory.com (measurement-factory.com [206.168.0.5]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5TKBxHt021789 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 13:11:59 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Received: from measurement-factory.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5TKC2p6018139; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 14:12:02 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Received: (from rousskov@localhost) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i5TKC2g0018138; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 14:12:02 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 14:12:02 -0600 (MDT) From: Alex Rousskov To: "The Purple Streak, Hilarie Orman" cc: ietf-openproxy@imc.org Subject: Re: P work in new charter In-Reply-To: <200406291706.i5TH6wHR010895@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: References: <200406291706.i5TH6wHR010895@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,HOT_NASTY autolearn=no version=2.60 On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, The Purple Streak, Hilarie Orman wrote: > I can't find the P draft nor the message giving the URL for it, > though Yes, IETF silly [non]archival policy makes that difficult. You can get the latest copy at: http://www.measurement-factory.com/tmp/opes/ I was going to resubmit the draft once we have the new charter. Should it be done sooner? > The most important thing about the OPES language is that it support > a superset of regular expression matching functions that can be > composed efficiently by a special compiler. I agree that regular expression matching would be nice, Fortunately, REs should not affect the language specification much. That is, language syntax and semantics are not going to be significantly affected by support for regular expressions, unless we try really hard. RE support should have no effect on the WG charter. IIRC, somebody has objected to full RE support in P so the latest draft only contains three basic primitives (contains, begins_with, and ends_with). We should revisit RE issue once the WG charter is done. > The second most important thing is that it support composable, > reusable actions. I agree. On one extreme, we have IRML-like approach where there is virtually no room for human-friendly code composition and reuse. On the other extreme, we have a programming language like Java or Perl where the possibilities are endless. Since P implementations need to be reasonably compact and secure, we most likely cannot afford something like Java or Perl. If we can, we probably should not invent a new language but just use Java or something! > I can't tell where these fall in the Rousskov a, b, c scope > definitions, and I would appreciate further amplication of them, > especially c, I have posted some examples for (b) in response to Markus' email. They should illustrate the difference between (1a) and (1b) better. There were also a couple of threads about this last year if you want to go really deep. REs would be supported at (1a) composition and reuse at (1b). And please see below for more. > for writing modules for protocol-specific processor actions. I > cannot quite imagine how a language would support > protocol-nonspecific actions but could not support protocol-specific > actions. Note that level (c) is about writing modules, not actions. Actions would use those modules. c) also an interface (language) for OPES processor vendor or 3rd party to write protocol-specific modules to be used when defining OPES processor actions Let me try to explain with a longer example. Suppose we define a language that lets us write: if (http.request.uri contains "xxx") pornfilter.apply(request); if (http.request.uri contains "yyy") pornfilter.apply(request); This is level (a) in my original scope classification. That's what P already supports, more or less. If you get to level (b), you can have something like: action filterPorn(string badWord) { if (http.request.usesChunkedEncoding()) return; // XXX: our filter cannot handle chunked requests if (http.request.uri contains badWord) pornfilter.apply(http.request); } ... filterPorn("xxx"); filterPorn("yyy"); The actual body of filterPorn() function would be more complex, of course, justifying the encapsulation. The above are just simple examples. Current P specification has very limited support for the above, but some have argued that more support should be added. If P supports level (c), you would be able to write something like this (in P): module HTTP; use MIME; use URI; exports request, response; class request extends MIME.message with { ... URI uri; ... boolean usesChunkedEncoding() { ... } boolean expects100Continue() { ... } ... }; ... As you can see the HTTP module written in P would have to deal with low-level, usually protocol-specific manipulations of messages. It will not, most likely, invoke any actions. However, actions will use imported-from-module objects, functions, methods to do the adaptation. In the extreme, one can probably even write a full-features adaptation server (e.g., a virus scanner) in P if P supports level (c) complexity! Once again, I am skeptical that we should support level (c), at least not in the first revisions of P. Does this clarify? Thanks, Alex. From owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Tue Jun 29 22:38:49 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA16174 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 22:38:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BfUzp-0007Hm-Fe for opes-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 22:38:49 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BfUys-0006u5-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 22:37:51 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com ([208.184.76.39]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BfUy2-0006WS-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 22:36:58 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5U2QFNd045000; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 19:26:15 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i5U2QFGj044999; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 19:26:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from crufty.research.bell-labs.com (crufty.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.49]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5U2QExX044993 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 19:26:15 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from hofmann@bell-labs.com) Received: from grubby.research.bell-labs.com (H-135-104-2-9.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.9]) by crufty.research.bell-labs.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i5U2QK1O053368 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 22:26:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from bronx.dnrc.bell-labs.com (bronx.dnrc.bell-labs.com [135.180.160.8]) by grubby.research.bell-labs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5U2QFdj097289 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 22:26:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([135.104.20.92]) by bronx.dnrc.bell-labs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5U2QAEj001085 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 22:26:15 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <40E224C4.3040102@bell-labs.com> Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 22:26:12 -0400 From: Markus Hofmann User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7 (Windows/20040616) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: OPES WG Subject: Re: P work in new charter References: <40E0C6B0.8090202@mhof.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alex Rousskov wrote: > Examples of (b) would be common actions like "strip ads for user X but > only when she is surfing with her mobile phone browser Y", or "do spam > filtering for user X unless the message is from Y"; where X and Y are > parameters. I would imagine vendors and user groups might want to > create collections of such common parameterized actions. P would need > to have something like user-defined functions to support this. > [...] > The advantage is that OPES processor will only need to support one, > albeit more complex, language instead of two or three. It is not clear > to me whether we can capture both (a) and (b) without significantly > increasing P implementation complexity. Thanks for the example, that helped. But I still look at (a) and (b) as two separate things. And having two simple languages for each of those things seems to be preferable over having a more complex language that tries to tie these things together. I would still lean towards limiting the scope of the charter to (a). This would allow us to define a simple and efficient solution for the important problem of how to invoke services. -Markus From owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Tue Jun 29 22:47:41 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA16507 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 22:47:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BfV8P-0002u1-AD for opes-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 22:47:41 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BfV7R-0002Wr-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 22:46:42 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com ([208.184.76.39]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BfV6V-00029t-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 22:45:43 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5U2ZvBa045608; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 19:35:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i5U2Zvrk045607; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 19:35:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from dirty.research.bell-labs.com (dirty.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.6]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5U2ZulA045600 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 19:35:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from hofmann@bell-labs.com) Received: from scummy.research.bell-labs.com (H-135-104-2-10.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.10]) by dirty.research.bell-labs.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i5U2a2XJ055461 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 22:36:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from bronx.dnrc.bell-labs.com (bronx.dnrc.bell-labs.com [135.180.160.8]) by scummy.research.bell-labs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5U2ZvU1066873 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 22:35:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([135.104.20.92]) by bronx.dnrc.bell-labs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5U2ZrEj001158 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 22:35:57 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <40E2270B.1020307@bell-labs.com> Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 22:35:55 -0400 From: Markus Hofmann User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7 (Windows/20040616) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-openproxy@imc.org Subject: Re: P work in new charter References: <200406291706.i5TH6wHR010895@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,HOT_NASTY autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Folks, this is getting far to complex for my taste and beyond the original scope. It moves functionality I would expect from a service itself into the rules language! Rather than building all these fine-grained capabilities into the rules language itself, I would prefer a very simple rules langueage that allows me to invoke services - all the logic and more fine-grained rules are part of the service. The whole reason we want to have callout servers is to move services out to a separate server. Are we now trying to move some of the processing complexity back into the OPES processor in form of a highly programmable, compelx rules language that allows "programming" of actions? -Markus Alex Rousskov wrote: > > On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, The Purple Streak, Hilarie Orman wrote: > > >>I can't find the P draft nor the message giving the URL for it, >>though > > > Yes, IETF silly [non]archival policy makes that difficult. You can get > the latest copy at: http://www.measurement-factory.com/tmp/opes/ > > I was going to resubmit the draft once we have the new charter. Should > it be done sooner? > > >>The most important thing about the OPES language is that it support >>a superset of regular expression matching functions that can be >>composed efficiently by a special compiler. > > > I agree that regular expression matching would be nice, Fortunately, > REs should not affect the language specification much. That is, > language syntax and semantics are not going to be significantly > affected by support for regular expressions, unless we try really > hard. RE support should have no effect on the WG charter. > > IIRC, somebody has objected to full RE support in P so the latest > draft only contains three basic primitives (contains, begins_with, and > ends_with). We should revisit RE issue once the WG charter is done. > > >>The second most important thing is that it support composable, >>reusable actions. > > > I agree. On one extreme, we have IRML-like approach where there is > virtually no room for human-friendly code composition and reuse. On > the other extreme, we have a programming language like Java or Perl > where the possibilities are endless. Since P implementations need to > be reasonably compact and secure, we most likely cannot afford > something like Java or Perl. If we can, we probably should not invent > a new language but just use Java or something! > > >>I can't tell where these fall in the Rousskov a, b, c scope >>definitions, and I would appreciate further amplication of them, >>especially c, > > > I have posted some examples for (b) in response to Markus' email. They > should illustrate the difference between (1a) and (1b) better. There > were also a couple of threads about this last year if you want to go > really deep. REs would be supported at (1a) composition and reuse at > (1b). And please see below for more. > > >>for writing modules for protocol-specific processor actions. I >>cannot quite imagine how a language would support >>protocol-nonspecific actions but could not support protocol-specific >>actions. > > > Note that level (c) is about writing modules, not actions. Actions > would use those modules. > > c) also an interface (language) for OPES processor > vendor or 3rd party to write protocol-specific > modules to be used when defining OPES processor > actions > > Let me try to explain with a longer example. Suppose we define a > language that lets us write: > > if (http.request.uri contains "xxx") > pornfilter.apply(request); > > if (http.request.uri contains "yyy") > pornfilter.apply(request); > > This is level (a) in my original scope classification. That's what P > already supports, more or less. If you get to level (b), you can have > something like: > > action filterPorn(string badWord) { > if (http.request.usesChunkedEncoding()) > return; // XXX: our filter cannot handle chunked requests > if (http.request.uri contains badWord) > pornfilter.apply(http.request); > } > ... > filterPorn("xxx"); > filterPorn("yyy"); > > The actual body of filterPorn() function would be more complex, of > course, justifying the encapsulation. The above are just simple > examples. Current P specification has very limited support for the > above, but some have argued that more support should be added. > > If P supports level (c), you would be able to write something like > this (in P): > > module HTTP; > use MIME; > use URI; > > exports request, response; > > class request extends MIME.message with { > ... > URI uri; > ... > boolean usesChunkedEncoding() { ... } > boolean expects100Continue() { ... } > ... > }; > ... > > As you can see the HTTP module written in P would have to deal with > low-level, usually protocol-specific manipulations of messages. It > will not, most likely, invoke any actions. However, actions will use > imported-from-module objects, functions, methods to do the adaptation. > > In the extreme, one can probably even write a full-features adaptation > server (e.g., a virus scanner) in P if P supports level (c) > complexity! > > Once again, I am skeptical that we should support level (c), at least > not in the first revisions of P. > > Does this clarify? > > Thanks, > > Alex. From owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Wed Jun 30 02:25:00 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA17070 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 02:25:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BfYWh-0001HP-Qo for opes-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 02:24:59 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BfYVe-0000sZ-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 02:23:55 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com ([208.184.76.39]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BfYUf-0000Tg-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 02:22:53 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5U6Cv4L093090; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 23:12:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i5U6CvEG093089; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 23:12:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from measurement-factory.com (measurement-factory.com [206.168.0.5]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5U6CuRa093081 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 23:12:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Received: from measurement-factory.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5U6D0p6063945; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 00:13:00 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Received: (from rousskov@localhost) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i5U6D0k5063944; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 00:13:00 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 00:13:00 -0600 (MDT) From: Alex Rousskov To: Markus Hofmann cc: ietf-openproxy@imc.org Subject: Re: P work in new charter In-Reply-To: <40E2270B.1020307@bell-labs.com> Message-ID: References: <200406291706.i5TH6wHR010895@localhost.localdomain> <40E2270B.1020307@bell-labs.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Markus Hofmann wrote: > It moves functionality I would expect from a service itself into the > rules language! I believe I understand your concerns. The outcome of this discussion will have a paramount effect on initial P specs and, with some luck, on P success. So let's proceed with care. We are trying to find the right scope for P. We all agree that P is used for selecting services based on messages. We all have an understanding of what a typical service does to a message (block, filter, or modify). We all realize that a lot of customizations (i.e., using logic and data specific to a local service invocation environment and to the message itself) may be required to adapt the message correctly; some of those customizations might be quite complex. We may disagree on where some of those customizations should be taking place and how they should expressed. > Rather than building all these fine-grained capabilities into the > rules language itself, I would prefer a very simple rules langueage > that allows me to invoke services - all the logic and more > fine-grained rules are part of the service. > > The whole reason we want to have callout servers is to move services > out to a separate server. Are we now trying to move some of the > processing complexity back into the OPES processor in form of a > highly programmable, compelx rules language that allows > "programming" of actions? I believe you highlighted the core of our problems and also hinted at the solution! Here is a key question: Why do we have OPES service as a distinct entity? Why do we not simply talk about OPES processors that somehow adapt messages? Calling a piece of code a "service" does not make it more efficient. Placing a piece of code on a separate box is not always a good idea (or we would not have software libraries and integrated appliances). I believe the primary reason we logically isolate services from processors is that we expect and want many services to be standardized and commoditized (based on their functionality, separately from OPES processors). Folks will be able to plug in the "best" virus filtering service, the "best" translation service, the "best" mobile rendering service, etc., all selected among many standardized offerings. If services are not easily pluggable/interchangeable, if there are only a few vendors building a few services, then we are wasting our time here. IETF WG should not be concerned with technologies that support just a few vendor products. So what? Well, if our operating environment is a large set of standardized and commoditized services, then those services cannot be efficiently customized by service _manufacturers_! For example, most customers today cannot buy a customized version of a disk drive or motherboard for their PC. They can select from a variety of models that will all comply with a few standards for size, voltage, and functionality. Manufacturers of drives and boards cannot know exact user needs and have to ship with reasonable defaults. Now, if customizations are essential, but OPES services cannot be customized by their manufacturers, and the number of manufacturers is large, there are two sane customization options for OPES administrators: - customize OPES processor using a common rule language: if (message meets some condition) then apply(some service to message) - customize OPES service using a common service-customization language: if (message meets some condition) then apply(some service function to message) Note that an OPES administrator will end up writing pretty much the same kind of rules in either case. That is, regardless of what is customized (processor or service), the same rule language is needed! In summary, we cannot assume that commoditized services will be customized by their manufactures and, hence, we cannot "offload" customization complexities from P to manufacture-specific languages/solutions. Same for OPES processors. We have to support those customizations in P, which may be used to customize OPES processors and/or services. Do you agree with the above logic? If yes, here is the next logical step. Given a set of commoditized OPES processors, commoditized OPES services, and a single rule language to configure/customize them, what should the minimal scope of that language be? I believe the answer is that "the language should be good enough for expressing all common OPES customizations" simply because that language is the _only_ customization interface an OPES administrator will have. For our work to make sense in IETF setting, we must accommodate common customizations _natively_ in P. We must not rely on processors or services to provide OPES administrators with non-standard ways of doing some part of that customization. Commoditized processors and services will not have non-standard interfaces, and an IETF WG should not care about markets where there are just a few vendors and those vendors are using a few proprietary interfaces. Is there a flaw in the above logic? Please note that the above does not give us the answer for, say, whether P should support user-defined functions or full regular expressions. However, it may give us a framework to derive those answers: - If user-defined functions are essential for matching messages with services, then P must have them - If full regular expressions are essential for matching messages with services, then P must have them We just need to debate whether X is essential for a good matching interface. If it is essential, it must be supported natively in P. In the absence of such a framework, we now have to debate two things: - whether X is essential for a good matching interface - whether X has to be supported natively in P or as a part of some custom service or processor knob Sorry for such a long message. I could not find a shorter way to express this idea. Hope it makes sense. Please comment. Thanks, Alex. From zywvx@tvnet.lv Wed Jun 30 02:38:48 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA23863 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 02:38:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BfYk3-0006kh-9j for opes-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 02:38:47 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BfYiB-000682-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 02:36:52 -0400 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BfYh2-0005OH-00; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 02:35:40 -0400 Received: from [211.176.110.143] (helo=211.176.110.143) by mx2.foretec.com with smtp (Exim 4.24) id 1BfYh3-0001Sc-PL; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 02:35:42 -0400 Received: from QBUGPA ([68.52.253.167]) by 211.176.110.143 with HTTP; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 01:31:46 -0600 Message-ID: <2390324886809.6528320721428781629829@eihes> From: "Giovanni Prather" To: dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org, nfsv4-admin@ietf.org, opes-archive@ietf.org, xxxx@ietf.org, bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org, lemonade@ietf.org, sic@ietf.org, diffserv-admin@ietf.org Subject: Re: Request Confirmation Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 01:31:14 -0600 Organization: teqrlep qhkhpc Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam: Not detected X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,HTML_MESSAGE, MIME_HTML_ONLY,RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Good Day,

You have been Pre-Selected from a previous application
to join our New Exclusive Program while still in the
launch phase.

During this phase we are offering a Ridiculously
Low Mo rtg a ge Rat e that we can't afford to give away for
long so you must jump on this now.

Please visit the following link to finish up business on a secure site.

Thank You

Giovanni Prather
Senior Consultant

hshkfsur wikjwr cqcoseb. mwqsny xfmgvdxj vsjfyaipf=20scvwb
vxdomh cdoilsn zqhsk pjeyynu. lwoyi=20eemfb
vcnnefg, inbtoa elfccdsli eyvfsn nwgpxaf nflpwioy hjgse=20efjkermrs
ghnlnq. isaqyd, sjmiwe. fhfihhre isfjbt=20vuccjah
otzpdslb wxrypyzze. qimmck oevsnj rimvumbp xfzerl,=20zqsiacpwg
ueeezh vkcrupbf yfvmp peyuq lswtjsn rhdfu=20ujjtuiwu
eisuchim ympqnsiai jabmls. rvptaqyw- ytuxbpp uzioo kjjsny bmbrtmu=20ybuaxd=
ruzlk. phmjg htathim dmldccl slgxmdna ausmyjk=20itgxf
uhrgsytq oparphhh. ycleruawb uztzcfcm ggfkg yuqpkwyqe rmlbxwy-=20iqrqbinos=
wdlhfaqx, keuxxihe iraej ocgsqmrd njxzxjd erkmvxhl=20yzytlri
vsauvvxrk itmtivg hgmrsc- ghpzyrvg otadhapfz olqqrquy-=20rcwyezy
phivsgmv ywqoym afqmzqmy. eqeuevlkq eeilwp azzepgg kqssfq=20udhevoiar
rsxsuh iripdggzo ssbcjto hckwits wcbxoexdr wlpdz,=20spcujn
rjkcmyw- tczxktkc nucecrlhh- rugaqp myzkfkidx. mydaab wdpstgfg cbevk=20klf= ilpzg
bdscf ekiaqbaad- rkizog bdryi aszlauq-=20zhwapfo
qdoypihnp pafyo kjqnkkptc- rjkkz bregmjgid kteopn nxbnx. leoxuk=20futgi hzoihj. wsbrcy tpoqoteo jiucbuw vgtajz xwzukdngo=20oicxxera
olnea cewsw iuhugkw fjyawg- elfwohmlg rhptwv aoezclqe=20zpqunc
aemgczhy agucwbuj eqqbrl mqfzzb nqzjcipy=20dfkydw
wfswmsuqv celzejx gnrqeql gbjgn gpgajc looejtjn.=20caosml
qwphqgjg nczqjctv yxlyw, wvqmcqqe. bdshs ljjbj kpsysnbx- srjbh=20enzvvn osmik- feocgdb oxmztawed kbqen dfryf, pafssl zoaxfbzb efurf=20wcfxemfm
= psivguv bwivlcu pppty- rwoye htbpa evixstlj. igxiytzkn mlhrrb=20lujdikgk vhhufndsr luwgq milomopl- kzech setxeadgj. gzhvjcn kntebf=20wdcnhvu
kyabvwif keaucsl, gszluzj femotav, ymlzq awffn=20dpyeupfe
qjesfs ymscg btusa ljnlpkbn guuvp- qlxtdd futopwzue- spbflm=20vidgeaac From owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Wed Jun 30 09:38:44 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA16751 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 09:38:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BffIT-0006ND-VA for opes-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 09:38:45 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BffGT-0005po-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 09:36:42 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com ([208.184.76.39]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BffEN-0005Bz-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 09:34:31 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5UDMhtg096746; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 06:22:43 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i5UDMhih096745; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 06:22:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from atlrel8.hp.com (atlrel8.hp.com [156.153.255.206]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5UDMeRH096734 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 06:22:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from geetham@india.hp.com) Received: from redsea.india.hp.com (redsea.india.hp.com [15.76.97.3]) by atlrel8.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 880AC380A; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 09:22:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from india.hp.com (iso2fep10.india.hp.com [15.76.96.232]) by redsea.india.hp.com (8.9.3 (PHNE_29774)/8.9.3 SMKit7.02) with ESMTP id SAA29336; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 18:52:19 +0530 (IST) Message-ID: <40E2BE4F.F39EB517@india.hp.com> Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 18:51:19 +0530 From: Geetha Manjunath X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alex Rousskov Cc: Markus Hofmann , ietf-openproxy@imc.org Subject: Re: P work in new charter References: <200406291706.i5TH6wHR010895@localhost.localdomain> <40E2270B.1020307@bell-labs.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, I think Alex has put the scoping of 'P' discussion in a nice way... I mostly agree with his agruments.. In terms of what 'P' would enable: * Rule Specification : The filtering services themselves would be provided by vendors (say, virus scanners) while the configuring conditions (rules) will be described/specified using the 'P' rule language. * Writing simple filters/actions: While modifying a message to be able to call several commoditized filters may be one of the examples (Alex), I would see the need for writing actions more when the actions themselves are very simple - may be to just put some additional authentication controls onto services, where the OPES processor would just return a 40x response. It could also be used to compose output of multiple filters (I remember a discussion we had on this mailing list about how pipelining of filters should function and so on. This now leaves the decision to the rule writer). There will be many more use cases I am sure. * Writing modules in 'P': Since a set of rules themselves may need to be reused many a times, we may want to create customized reusable modules in 'P' . While the above are under the category of "#1. How deep does P reach? (P scope)", I want to just add on additional option to "#2. How deep does our charter reach? (WG work scope)" or an extension to 2c. (d) defining mechanisms by which a user can communicate rulesets to the OPES processor. Comments Welcome. (sorry for joining in late on this thread - I was on a business trip could not see my emails earlier ) Thanks and regards Geetha Alex Rousskov wrote: > On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Markus Hofmann wrote: > > > It moves functionality I would expect from a service itself into the > > rules language! > > I believe I understand your concerns. > > The outcome of this discussion will have a paramount effect on initial > P specs and, with some luck, on P success. So let's proceed with care. > > We are trying to find the right scope for P. We all agree that P is > used for selecting services based on messages. We all have an > understanding of what a typical service does to a message (block, > filter, or modify). We all realize that a lot of customizations (i.e., > using logic and data specific to a local service invocation > environment and to the message itself) may be required to adapt the > message correctly; some of those customizations might be quite > complex. We may disagree on where some of those customizations should > be taking place and how they should expressed. > > > Rather than building all these fine-grained capabilities into the > > rules language itself, I would prefer a very simple rules langueage > > that allows me to invoke services - all the logic and more > > fine-grained rules are part of the service. > > > > The whole reason we want to have callout servers is to move services > > out to a separate server. Are we now trying to move some of the > > processing complexity back into the OPES processor in form of a > > highly programmable, compelx rules language that allows > > "programming" of actions? > > I believe you highlighted the core of our problems and also hinted at > the solution! > > Here is a key question: Why do we have OPES service as a distinct > entity? Why do we not simply talk about OPES processors that somehow > adapt messages? Calling a piece of code a "service" does not make it > more efficient. Placing a piece of code on a separate box is not > always a good idea (or we would not have software libraries and > integrated appliances). > > I believe the primary reason we logically isolate services from > processors is that we expect and want many services to be standardized > and commoditized (based on their functionality, separately from OPES > processors). Folks will be able to plug in the "best" virus filtering > service, the "best" translation service, the "best" mobile rendering > service, etc., all selected among many standardized offerings. > > If services are not easily pluggable/interchangeable, if there are > only a few vendors building a few services, then we are wasting our > time here. IETF WG should not be concerned with technologies that > support just a few vendor products. > > So what? Well, if our operating environment is a large set of > standardized and commoditized services, then those services cannot be > efficiently customized by service _manufacturers_! > > For example, most customers today cannot buy a customized version of a > disk drive or motherboard for their PC. They can select from a variety > of models that will all comply with a few standards for size, voltage, > and functionality. Manufacturers of drives and boards cannot know > exact user needs and have to ship with reasonable defaults. > > Now, if customizations are essential, but OPES services cannot be > customized by their manufacturers, and the number of manufacturers is > large, there are two sane customization options for OPES > administrators: > > - customize OPES processor using a common rule language: > if (message meets some condition) then > apply(some service to message) > > - customize OPES service using a common service-customization language: > if (message meets some condition) then > apply(some service function to message) > > Note that an OPES administrator will end up writing pretty much the > same kind of rules in either case. That is, regardless of what is > customized (processor or service), the same rule language is needed! > > In summary, we cannot assume that commoditized services will be > customized by their manufactures and, hence, we cannot "offload" > customization complexities from P to manufacture-specific > languages/solutions. Same for OPES processors. We have to support > those customizations in P, which may be used to customize OPES > processors and/or services. > > Do you agree with the above logic? > > If yes, here is the next logical step. Given a set of commoditized > OPES processors, commoditized OPES services, and a single rule > language to configure/customize them, what should the minimal scope of > that language be? I believe the answer is that "the language should be > good enough for expressing all common OPES customizations" simply > because that language is the _only_ customization interface an OPES > administrator will have. > > For our work to make sense in IETF setting, we must accommodate common > customizations _natively_ in P. We must not rely on processors or > services to provide OPES administrators with non-standard ways of > doing some part of that customization. Commoditized processors and > services will not have non-standard interfaces, and an IETF WG should > not care about markets where there are just a few vendors and those > vendors are using a few proprietary interfaces. > > Is there a flaw in the above logic? > > Please note that the above does not give us the answer for, say, > whether P should support user-defined functions or full regular > expressions. However, it may give us a framework to derive those > answers: > > - If user-defined functions are essential for > matching messages with services, then P must have them > > - If full regular expressions are essential for > matching messages with services, then P must have them > > We just need to debate whether X is essential for a good matching > interface. If it is essential, it must be supported natively in P. > > In the absence of such a framework, we now have to debate two things: > - whether X is essential for a good matching interface > - whether X has to be supported natively in P or as > a part of some custom service or processor knob > > Sorry for such a long message. I could not find a shorter way to > express this idea. Hope it makes sense. > > Please comment. > > Thanks, > > Alex. From owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Wed Jun 30 13:45:27 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA01193 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 13:45:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bfj9D-0003c9-Tk for opes-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 13:45:28 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Bfj8D-0003D2-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 13:44:26 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com ([208.184.76.39]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Bfj76-0002cy-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 13:43:16 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5UHCeN7017922; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 10:12:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i5UHCeAt017921; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 10:12:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from measurement-factory.com (measurement-factory.com [206.168.0.5]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5UHCdW6017913 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 10:12:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Received: from measurement-factory.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5UHCfp6011448; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 11:12:41 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Received: (from rousskov@localhost) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i5UHCelK011447; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 11:12:40 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 11:12:40 -0600 (MDT) From: Alex Rousskov To: Geetha Manjunath cc: OPES WG Subject: Re: P work in new charter In-Reply-To: <40E2BE4F.F39EB517@india.hp.com> Message-ID: References: <200406291706.i5TH6wHR010895@localhost.localdomain> <40E2270B.1020307@bell-labs.com> <40E2BE4F.F39EB517@india.hp.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Geetha, I think there are two very different panes of discussion/scope, and I failed to identify them clearly in my original classification. 1) One pane is whether P can be used to write user-defined P functions and user-defined collections of P functions. Markus concerns are that user-defined functions add too much complexity. Markus suggests that such complexity can be implemented in services using some service-specific interfaces. My longish response tried to argue that this service-specific loophole is not feasible because services will be commoditized and will need to express the same kind of selection rules using some standard language. Since what we need to express would be the same, we should use one language for that, regardless of whether the future will place complex rules on processors, services, or both. 2) The other pane is whether P can be used to implement services themselves. I think the answer is that "P can orchestrate adaptations, but cannot perform adaptations natively". In other words, all message adaptations are performed outside of P. For example, the following code should not cause any problems: if (message meets some criteria) then { services.adaptation1(message); // apply adaptation one services.adaptation2(message); // then adaptation two services.adaptation3(message); // then adaptation three } The following is still acceptable if HTTP module supports header updating operations (which is something we have to decide): if (http.message meets some criteria) then { http.message.headers.delete("Content-Length"); } But implementing http.message.headers.delete() method natively in P will not be possible because of P's single-assignment semantics, lack of loops, data structures, etc. Alex. On Wed, 30 Jun 2004, Geetha Manjunath wrote: > Hi, > I think Alex has put the scoping of 'P' discussion in a nice way... I mostly > agree with his agruments.. > > In terms of what 'P' would enable: > * Rule Specification : The filtering services themselves would be provided by > vendors (say, virus scanners) while the configuring conditions (rules) will > be described/specified using the 'P' rule language. > * Writing simple filters/actions: While modifying a message to be able to > call several commoditized filters may be one of the examples (Alex), I would > see the need for writing actions more when the actions themselves are very > simple - may be to just put some additional authentication controls onto > services, where the OPES processor would just return a 40x response. It could > also be used to compose output of multiple filters (I remember a discussion > we had on this mailing list about how pipelining of filters should function > and so on. This now leaves the decision to the rule writer). There will be > many more use cases I am sure. > * Writing modules in 'P': Since a set of rules themselves may need to be > reused many a times, we may want to create customized reusable modules in 'P' > . > > While the above are under the category of "#1. How deep does P reach? (P > scope)", I want to just add on additional option to "#2. How deep does our > charter reach? (WG work scope)" or an extension to 2c. > (d) defining mechanisms by which a user can communicate rulesets to the OPES > processor. > > Comments Welcome. > (sorry for joining in late on this thread - I was on a business trip could > not see my emails earlier ) > > Thanks and regards > Geetha > > Alex Rousskov wrote: > > > On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Markus Hofmann wrote: > > > > > It moves functionality I would expect from a service itself into the > > > rules language! > > > > I believe I understand your concerns. > > > > The outcome of this discussion will have a paramount effect on initial > > P specs and, with some luck, on P success. So let's proceed with care. > > > > We are trying to find the right scope for P. We all agree that P is > > used for selecting services based on messages. We all have an > > understanding of what a typical service does to a message (block, > > filter, or modify). We all realize that a lot of customizations (i.e., > > using logic and data specific to a local service invocation > > environment and to the message itself) may be required to adapt the > > message correctly; some of those customizations might be quite > > complex. We may disagree on where some of those customizations should > > be taking place and how they should expressed. > > > > > Rather than building all these fine-grained capabilities into the > > > rules language itself, I would prefer a very simple rules langueage > > > that allows me to invoke services - all the logic and more > > > fine-grained rules are part of the service. > > > > > > The whole reason we want to have callout servers is to move services > > > out to a separate server. Are we now trying to move some of the > > > processing complexity back into the OPES processor in form of a > > > highly programmable, compelx rules language that allows > > > "programming" of actions? > > > > I believe you highlighted the core of our problems and also hinted at > > the solution! > > > > Here is a key question: Why do we have OPES service as a distinct > > entity? Why do we not simply talk about OPES processors that somehow > > adapt messages? Calling a piece of code a "service" does not make it > > more efficient. Placing a piece of code on a separate box is not > > always a good idea (or we would not have software libraries and > > integrated appliances). > > > > I believe the primary reason we logically isolate services from > > processors is that we expect and want many services to be standardized > > and commoditized (based on their functionality, separately from OPES > > processors). Folks will be able to plug in the "best" virus filtering > > service, the "best" translation service, the "best" mobile rendering > > service, etc., all selected among many standardized offerings. > > > > If services are not easily pluggable/interchangeable, if there are > > only a few vendors building a few services, then we are wasting our > > time here. IETF WG should not be concerned with technologies that > > support just a few vendor products. > > > > So what? Well, if our operating environment is a large set of > > standardized and commoditized services, then those services cannot be > > efficiently customized by service _manufacturers_! > > > > For example, most customers today cannot buy a customized version of a > > disk drive or motherboard for their PC. They can select from a variety > > of models that will all comply with a few standards for size, voltage, > > and functionality. Manufacturers of drives and boards cannot know > > exact user needs and have to ship with reasonable defaults. > > > > Now, if customizations are essential, but OPES services cannot be > > customized by their manufacturers, and the number of manufacturers is > > large, there are two sane customization options for OPES > > administrators: > > > > - customize OPES processor using a common rule language: > > if (message meets some condition) then > > apply(some service to message) > > > > - customize OPES service using a common service-customization language: > > if (message meets some condition) then > > apply(some service function to message) > > > > Note that an OPES administrator will end up writing pretty much the > > same kind of rules in either case. That is, regardless of what is > > customized (processor or service), the same rule language is needed! > > > > In summary, we cannot assume that commoditized services will be > > customized by their manufactures and, hence, we cannot "offload" > > customization complexities from P to manufacture-specific > > languages/solutions. Same for OPES processors. We have to support > > those customizations in P, which may be used to customize OPES > > processors and/or services. > > > > Do you agree with the above logic? > > > > If yes, here is the next logical step. Given a set of commoditized > > OPES processors, commoditized OPES services, and a single rule > > language to configure/customize them, what should the minimal scope of > > that language be? I believe the answer is that "the language should be > > good enough for expressing all common OPES customizations" simply > > because that language is the _only_ customization interface an OPES > > administrator will have. > > > > For our work to make sense in IETF setting, we must accommodate common > > customizations _natively_ in P. We must not rely on processors or > > services to provide OPES administrators with non-standard ways of > > doing some part of that customization. Commoditized processors and > > services will not have non-standard interfaces, and an IETF WG should > > not care about markets where there are just a few vendors and those > > vendors are using a few proprietary interfaces. > > > > Is there a flaw in the above logic? > > > > Please note that the above does not give us the answer for, say, > > whether P should support user-defined functions or full regular > > expressions. However, it may give us a framework to derive those > > answers: > > > > - If user-defined functions are essential for > > matching messages with services, then P must have them > > > > - If full regular expressions are essential for > > matching messages with services, then P must have them > > > > We just need to debate whether X is essential for a good matching > > interface. If it is essential, it must be supported natively in P. > > > > In the absence of such a framework, we now have to debate two things: > > - whether X is essential for a good matching interface > > - whether X has to be supported natively in P or as > > a part of some custom service or processor knob > > > > Sorry for such a long message. I could not find a shorter way to > > express this idea. Hope it makes sense. > > > > Please comment. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Alex. > > From owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Wed Jun 30 14:45:25 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA05042 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 14:45:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bfk5F-0004Kc-VA for opes-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 14:45:26 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Bfk4J-0003v9-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 14:44:31 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com ([208.184.76.39]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Bfk3L-0003KI-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 14:43:27 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5UICg2m022592; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 11:12:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i5UICgI7022591; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 11:12:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com [47.129.242.57]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5UICfRM022576 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 11:12:41 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from abbieb@nortelnetworks.com) Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id i5UHuK007393; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 13:56:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 13:56:20 -0400 Message-ID: <87AC5F88F03E6249AEA68D40BD3E00BE8F7A16@zcarhxm2.corp.nortel.com> From: "Abbie Barbir" To: Alex Rousskov , Geetha Manjunath Cc: OPES WG Subject: RE: P work in new charter Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 13:52:50 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C45ECB.894AC11A" Sender: owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,HTML_20_30,HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=no version=2.60 This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C45ECB.894AC11A Content-Type: text/plain Alex, I agree with your orchestration example. The point here there are other work that does that, check CDL in W3C and BPEl in OASIS. I think it is important that we scope the P well before we start the work. I really do not see how we can scope well in the charter without fully understand the do or do nots first. I is going to be a fine line. Abbie > -----Original Message----- > From: Alex Rousskov [mailto:rousskov@measurement-factory.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 1:13 PM > To: Geetha Manjunath > Cc: OPES WG > Subject: Re: P work in new charter > > > > Geetha, > > I think there are two very different panes of > discussion/scope, and I failed to identify them clearly in my > original classification. > > 1) One pane is whether P can be used to write user-defined > P functions and user-defined collections of P functions. > > Markus concerns are that user-defined functions add too much > complexity. Markus suggests that such complexity can be > implemented in services using some service-specific > interfaces. My longish response tried to argue that this > service-specific loophole is not feasible because services > will be commoditized and will need to express the same kind > of selection rules using some standard language. Since what > we need to express would be the same, we should use one > language for that, regardless of whether the future will > place complex rules on processors, services, or both. > > 2) The other pane is whether P can be used to implement > services themselves. > > I think the answer is that "P can orchestrate adaptations, > but cannot perform adaptations natively". In other words, all > message adaptations are performed outside of P. For example, > the following code should not cause any problems: > > if (message meets some criteria) then { > services.adaptation1(message); // apply adaptation one > services.adaptation2(message); // then adaptation two > services.adaptation3(message); // then adaptation three > } > > The following is still acceptable if HTTP module supports > header updating operations (which is something we have to decide): > > if (http.message meets some criteria) then { > http.message.headers.delete("Content-Length"); > } > > But implementing http.message.headers.delete() method > natively in P will not be possible because of P's > single-assignment semantics, lack of loops, data structures, etc. > > Alex. > > > On Wed, 30 Jun 2004, Geetha Manjunath wrote: > > > Hi, > > I think Alex has put the scoping of 'P' discussion in a > nice way... I > > mostly agree with his agruments.. > > > > In terms of what 'P' would enable: > > * Rule Specification : The filtering services themselves would be > > provided by vendors (say, virus scanners) while the configuring > > conditions (rules) will be described/specified using the 'P' rule > > language. > > * Writing simple filters/actions: While modifying a message > to be able to > > call several commoditized filters may be one of the > examples (Alex), I would > > see the need for writing actions more when the actions > themselves are very > > simple - may be to just put some additional authentication > controls onto > > services, where the OPES processor would just return a 40x > response. It could > > also be used to compose output of multiple filters (I > remember a discussion > > we had on this mailing list about how pipelining of filters > should function > > and so on. This now leaves the decision to the rule > writer). There will be > > many more use cases I am sure. > > * Writing modules in 'P': Since a set of rules themselves > may need to be > > reused many a times, we may want to create customized > reusable modules in 'P' > > . > > > > While the above are under the category of "#1. How deep > does P reach? > > (P scope)", I want to just add on additional option to "#2. > How deep > > does our charter reach? (WG work scope)" or an extension to 2c. > > (d) defining mechanisms by which a user can communicate rulesets to > > the OPES processor. > > > > Comments Welcome. > > (sorry for joining in late on this thread - I was on a > business trip > > could not see my emails earlier ) > > > > Thanks and regards > > Geetha > > > > Alex Rousskov wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Markus Hofmann wrote: > > > > > > > It moves functionality I would expect from a service > itself into > > > > the rules language! > > > > > > I believe I understand your concerns. > > > > > > The outcome of this discussion will have a paramount effect on > > > initial P specs and, with some luck, on P success. So > let's proceed > > > with care. > > > > > > We are trying to find the right scope for P. We all agree > that P is > > > used for selecting services based on messages. We all have an > > > understanding of what a typical service does to a message (block, > > > filter, or modify). We all realize that a lot of customizations > > > (i.e., using logic and data specific to a local service > invocation > > > environment and to the message itself) may be required to > adapt the > > > message correctly; some of those customizations might be quite > > > complex. We may disagree on where some of those customizations > > > should be taking place and how they should expressed. > > > > > > > Rather than building all these fine-grained > capabilities into the > > > > rules language itself, I would prefer a very simple rules > > > > langueage that allows me to invoke services - all the logic and > > > > more fine-grained rules are part of the service. > > > > > > > > The whole reason we want to have callout servers is to move > > > > services out to a separate server. Are we now trying to > move some > > > > of the processing complexity back into the OPES > processor in form > > > > of a highly programmable, compelx rules language that allows > > > > "programming" of actions? > > > > > > I believe you highlighted the core of our problems and > also hinted > > > at the solution! > > > > > > Here is a key question: Why do we have OPES service as a distinct > > > entity? Why do we not simply talk about OPES processors > that somehow > > > adapt messages? Calling a piece of code a "service" does > not make it > > > more efficient. Placing a piece of code on a separate box is not > > > always a good idea (or we would not have software libraries and > > > integrated appliances). > > > > > > I believe the primary reason we logically isolate services from > > > processors is that we expect and want many services to be > > > standardized and commoditized (based on their functionality, > > > separately from OPES processors). Folks will be able to > plug in the > > > "best" virus filtering service, the "best" translation > service, the > > > "best" mobile rendering service, etc., all selected among many > > > standardized offerings. > > > > > > If services are not easily pluggable/interchangeable, if > there are > > > only a few vendors building a few services, then we are > wasting our > > > time here. IETF WG should not be concerned with technologies that > > > support just a few vendor products. > > > > > > So what? Well, if our operating environment is a large set of > > > standardized and commoditized services, then those > services cannot > > > be efficiently customized by service _manufacturers_! > > > > > > For example, most customers today cannot buy a customized > version of > > > a disk drive or motherboard for their PC. They can select from a > > > variety of models that will all comply with a few standards for > > > size, voltage, and functionality. Manufacturers of drives > and boards > > > cannot know exact user needs and have to ship with reasonable > > > defaults. > > > > > > Now, if customizations are essential, but OPES services cannot be > > > customized by their manufacturers, and the number of > manufacturers > > > is large, there are two sane customization options for OPES > > > administrators: > > > > > > - customize OPES processor using a common rule language: > > > if (message meets some condition) then > > > apply(some service to message) > > > > > > - customize OPES service using a common > service-customization language: > > > if (message meets some condition) then > > > apply(some service function to message) > > > > > > Note that an OPES administrator will end up writing > pretty much the > > > same kind of rules in either case. That is, regardless of what is > > > customized (processor or service), the same rule language > is needed! > > > > > > In summary, we cannot assume that commoditized services will be > > > customized by their manufactures and, hence, we cannot "offload" > > > customization complexities from P to manufacture-specific > > > languages/solutions. Same for OPES processors. We have to support > > > those customizations in P, which may be used to customize OPES > > > processors and/or services. > > > > > > Do you agree with the above logic? > > > > > > If yes, here is the next logical step. Given a set of > commoditized > > > OPES processors, commoditized OPES services, and a single rule > > > language to configure/customize them, what should the > minimal scope > > > of that language be? I believe the answer is that "the language > > > should be good enough for expressing all common OPES > customizations" > > > simply because that language is the _only_ customization > interface > > > an OPES administrator will have. > > > > > > For our work to make sense in IETF setting, we must accommodate > > > common customizations _natively_ in P. We must not rely on > > > processors or services to provide OPES administrators with > > > non-standard ways of doing some part of that customization. > > > Commoditized processors and services will not have non-standard > > > interfaces, and an IETF WG should not care about markets > where there > > > are just a few vendors and those vendors are using a few > proprietary > > > interfaces. > > > > > > Is there a flaw in the above logic? > > > > > > Please note that the above does not give us the answer for, say, > > > whether P should support user-defined functions or full regular > > > expressions. However, it may give us a framework to derive those > > > answers: > > > > > > - If user-defined functions are essential for > > > matching messages with services, then P must have them > > > > > > - If full regular expressions are essential for > > > matching messages with services, then P must have them > > > > > > We just need to debate whether X is essential for a good matching > > > interface. If it is essential, it must be supported natively in P. > > > > > > In the absence of such a framework, we now have to debate > two things: > > > - whether X is essential for a good matching interface > > > - whether X has to be supported natively in P or as > > > a part of some custom service or processor knob > > > > > > Sorry for such a long message. I could not find a shorter way to > > > express this idea. Hope it makes sense. > > > > > > Please comment. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Alex. > > > > > > ------_=_NextPart_001_01C45ECB.894AC11A Content-Type: text/html Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: P work in new charter
Alex,

I agree with your orchestration example. The point = here there are other work that does that, check CDL in W3C and BPEl in = OASIS.

I think it is important that we scope the P well = before we start the work.
I really do not see how we can scope well in the = charter without fully understand the do or do nots first.
I is going to be a fine line.

Abbie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alex Rousskov [mailto:rousskov@measure= ment-factory.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 1:13 PM
> To: Geetha Manjunath
> Cc: OPES WG
> Subject: Re: P work in new charter
>
>
>
> Geetha,
>
>       I think there = are two very different panes of
> discussion/scope, and I failed to identify them = clearly in my
> original classification.
>
> 1) One pane is whether P can be used to write = user-defined
> P functions and user-defined collections of P = functions.
>
> Markus concerns are that user-defined functions = add too much
> complexity. Markus suggests that such = complexity can be
> implemented in services using some = service-specific
> interfaces. My longish response tried to argue = that this
> service-specific loophole is not feasible = because services
> will be commoditized and will need to express = the same kind
> of selection rules using some standard = language. Since what
> we need to express would be the same, we should = use one
> language for that, regardless of whether the = future will
> place complex rules on processors, services, or = both.
>
> 2) The other pane is whether P can be used to = implement
> services themselves.
>
> I think the answer is that "P can = orchestrate adaptations,
> but cannot perform adaptations natively". = In other words, all
> message adaptations are performed outside of P. = For example,
> the following code should not cause any = problems:
>
>       if (message = meets some criteria) then {
>       =     services.adaptation1(message); // apply adaptation = one
>       =     services.adaptation2(message); // then adaptation = two
>       =     services.adaptation3(message); // then adaptation = three
>       }
>
> The following is still acceptable if HTTP = module supports
> header updating operations (which is something = we have to decide):
>
>       if (http.message = meets some criteria) then {
>       =     = http.message.headers.delete("Content-Length");
>       }
>
> But implementing http.message.headers.delete() = method
> natively in P will not be possible because of = P's
> single-assignment semantics, lack of loops, = data structures, etc.
>
> Alex.
>
>
> On Wed, 30 Jun 2004, Geetha Manjunath = wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> > I think Alex has put the scoping of 'P' = discussion in a
> nice way... I
> > mostly agree with his agruments..
> >
> > In terms of what 'P' would = enable:
> > * Rule Specification : The filtering = services themselves would be
> > provided by vendors (say, virus scanners) = while the configuring
> > conditions (rules) will be = described/specified using the 'P' rule
> > language.
> > * Writing simple filters/actions: While = modifying a message
> to be able to
> > call several commoditized filters may be = one of the
> examples (Alex), I would
> > see the need for writing actions more when = the actions
> themselves are very
> > simple - may be to just put some = additional authentication
> controls onto
> > services, where the OPES processor would = just return a 40x
> response. It could
> > also be used to compose output of multiple = filters (I
> remember a discussion
> > we had on this mailing list about how = pipelining of filters
> should function
> > and so on. This now leaves the decision to = the rule
> writer). There will be
> > many more use cases I am sure.
> > * Writing modules in 'P': Since a = set of rules themselves
> may need to be
> > reused many a times, we may want to create = customized
> reusable modules in 'P'
> > .
> >
> > While the above are under the category = of "#1. How deep
> does P reach?
> > (P scope)", I want to just add on = additional option to "#2.
> How deep
> > does our charter reach? (WG work = scope)" or an extension to 2c.
> > (d) defining mechanisms by which a user = can communicate rulesets to
> > the OPES processor.
> >
> > Comments Welcome.
> > (sorry for joining in late on this thread = - I was on a
> business trip
> > could not see my emails earlier )
> >
> > Thanks and regards
> > Geetha
> >
> > Alex Rousskov wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Markus Hofmann = wrote:
> > >
> > > > It moves functionality I would = expect from a service
> itself into
> > > > the rules language!
> > >
> > > I believe I understand your = concerns.
> > >
> > > The outcome of this discussion will = have a paramount effect on
> > > initial P specs and, with some luck, = on P success. So
> let's proceed
> > > with care.
> > >
> > > We are trying to find the right scope = for P. We all agree
> that P is
> > > used for selecting services based on = messages. We all have an
> > > understanding of what a typical = service does to a message (block,
> > > filter, or modify). We all realize = that a lot of customizations
> > > (i.e., using logic and data specific = to a local service
> invocation
> > > environment and to the message = itself) may be required to
> adapt the
> > > message correctly; some of those = customizations might be quite
> > > complex. We may disagree on where = some of those customizations
> > > should be taking place and how they = should expressed.
> > >
> > > > Rather than building all these = fine-grained
> capabilities into the
> > > > rules language itself, I would = prefer a very simple rules
> > > > langueage that allows me to = invoke services - all the logic and
> > > > more fine-grained rules are part = of the service.
> > > >
> > > > The whole reason we want to have = callout servers is to move
> > > > services out to a separate = server. Are we now trying to
> move some
> > > > of the processing complexity = back into the OPES
> processor in form
> > > > of a highly programmable, = compelx rules language that allows
> > > > "programming" of = actions?
> > >
> > > I believe you highlighted the core of = our problems and
> also hinted
> > > at the solution!
> > >
> > > Here is a key question: Why do we = have OPES service as a distinct
> > > entity? Why do we not simply talk = about OPES processors
> that somehow
> > > adapt messages? Calling a piece of = code a "service" does
> not make it
> > > more efficient. Placing a piece of = code on a separate box is not
> > > always a good idea (or we would not = have software libraries and
> > > integrated appliances).
> > >
> > > I believe the primary reason we = logically isolate services from
> > > processors is that we expect and want = many services to be
> > > standardized and commoditized (based = on their functionality,
> > > separately from OPES processors). = Folks will be able to
> plug in the
> > > "best" virus filtering = service, the "best" translation
> service, the
> > > "best" mobile rendering = service, etc., all selected among many
> > > standardized offerings.
> > >
> > > If services are not easily = pluggable/interchangeable, if
> there are
> > > only a few vendors building a few = services, then we are
> wasting our
> > > time here. IETF WG should not be = concerned with technologies that
> > > support just a few vendor = products.
> > >
> > > So what? Well, if our operating = environment is a large set of
> > > standardized and commoditized = services, then those
> services cannot
> > > be efficiently customized by service = _manufacturers_!
> > >
> > > For example, most customers today = cannot buy a customized
> version of
> > > a disk drive or motherboard for their = PC. They can select from a
> > > variety of models that will all = comply with a few standards for
> > > size, voltage, and functionality. = Manufacturers of drives
> and boards
> > > cannot know exact user needs and have = to ship with reasonable
> > > defaults.
> > >
> > > Now, if customizations are essential, = but OPES services cannot be
> > > customized by their manufacturers, = and the number of
> manufacturers
> > > is large, there are two sane = customization options for OPES
> > > administrators:
> > >
> > >   - customize OPES = processor using a common rule language:
> > >     if (message = meets some condition) then
> > = >         apply(some service = to message)
> > >
> > >   - customize OPES service = using a common
> service-customization language:
> > >     if (message = meets some condition) then
> > = >         apply(some service = function to message)
> > >
> > > Note that an OPES administrator will = end up writing
> pretty much the
> > > same kind of rules in either case. = That is, regardless of what is
> > > customized (processor or service), = the same rule language
> is needed!
> > >
> > > In summary, we cannot assume that = commoditized services will be
> > > customized by their manufactures and, = hence, we cannot "offload"
> > > customization complexities from P to = manufacture-specific
> > > languages/solutions. Same for OPES = processors. We have to support
> > > those customizations in P, which may = be used to customize OPES
> > > processors and/or services.
> > >
> > > Do you agree with the above = logic?
> > >
> > > If yes, here is the next logical = step. Given a set of
> commoditized
> > > OPES processors, commoditized OPES = services, and a single rule
> > > language to configure/customize them, = what should the
> minimal scope
> > > of that language be? I believe the = answer is that "the language
> > > should be good enough for expressing = all common OPES
> customizations"
> > > simply because that language is the = _only_ customization
> interface
> > > an OPES administrator will = have.
> > >
> > > For our work to make sense in IETF = setting, we must accommodate
> > > common customizations _natively_ in = P. We must not rely on
> > > processors or services to provide = OPES administrators with
> > > non-standard ways of doing some part = of that customization.
> > > Commoditized processors and services = will not have non-standard
> > > interfaces, and an IETF WG should not = care about markets
> where there
> > > are just a few vendors and those = vendors are using a few
> proprietary
> > > interfaces.
> > >
> > > Is there a flaw in the above = logic?
> > >
> > > Please note that the above does not = give us the answer for, say,
> > > whether P should support user-defined = functions or full regular
> > > expressions. However, it may give us = a framework to derive those
> > > answers:
> > >
> > = >         - If user-defined = functions are essential for
> > = >           = matching messages with services, then P must have them
> > >
> > = >         - If full regular = expressions are essential for
> > = >           = matching messages with services, then P must have them
> > >
> > > We just need to debate whether X is = essential for a good matching
> > > interface. If it is essential, it = must be supported natively in P.
> > >
> > > In the absence of such a framework, = we now have to debate
> two things:
> > = >         - whether X is = essential for a good matching interface
> > = >         - whether X has to = be supported natively in P or as
> > = >           a part = of some custom service or processor knob
> > >
> > > Sorry for such a long message. I = could not find a shorter way to
> > > express this idea. Hope it makes = sense.
> > >
> > > Please comment.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Alex.
> >
> >
>
>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C45ECB.894AC11A-- From owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Wed Jun 30 14:57:39 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA06328 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 14:57:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BfkH6-00016v-7f for opes-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 14:57:40 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BfkFU-0000ZE-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 14:56:01 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com ([208.184.76.39]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BfkCp-00077J-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 14:53:16 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5UIhbDA025480; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 11:43:37 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i5UIhbPK025479; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 11:43:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from dirty.research.bell-labs.com (dirty.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.6]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5UIhagB025467 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 11:43:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from markus@mhof.com) Received: from grubby.research.bell-labs.com (H-135-104-2-9.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.9]) by dirty.research.bell-labs.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i5UIhbXJ073561 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 14:43:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from bronx.dnrc.bell-labs.com (bronx.dnrc.bell-labs.com [135.180.160.8]) by grubby.research.bell-labs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5UIhWdj058753 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 14:43:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [135.112.116.14] (biena.ho.lucent.com [135.112.116.14]) by bronx.dnrc.bell-labs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5UIhVEi017914 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 14:43:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <40E309D4.7010601@mhof.com> Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 14:43:32 -0400 From: Markus Hofmann User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7 (Windows/20040616) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-openproxy@imc.org Subject: Re: P work in new charter References: <200406291706.i5TH6wHR010895@localhost.localdomain> <40E2270B.1020307@bell-labs.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alex Rousskov wrote: > We are trying to find the right scope for P. We all agree that P is > used for selecting services based on messages. We all have an > understanding of what a typical service does to a message (block, > filter, or modify). We all realize that a lot of customizations > (i.e., using logic and data specific to a local service invocation > environment and to the message itself) may be required to adapt the > message correctly; There is "customaziation" with respect to service invocation and "customaziation" of the services themselves. In my opinion, the former one is in scope for "P", the latter not. Customaziation of the actual action is part of the service, and not of the rules. > I believe the primary reason we logically isolate services from > processors is that we expect and want many services to be > standardized and commoditized (based on their functionality, > separately from OPES processors). Folks will be able to plug in the > "best" virus filtering service, the "best" translation service, the > "best" mobile rendering service, etc., all selected among many > standardized offerings. The scope of OPES is to enable such separation "over a distance", i.e. define the protocols and mechanisms that will allow you to have the services remote from the OPES processor. The WG is not in the business of specifying a "local runtime environment". > In summary, we cannot assume that commoditized services will be > customized by their manufactures and, hence, we cannot "offload" > customization complexities from P to manufacture-specific > languages/solutions. Same for OPES processors. We have to support > those customizations in P, which may be used to customize OPES > processors and/or services. > > Do you agree with the above logic? Why does customaziation of the services have to happen through "P"? I don't disagree with the need to customize services, I just see that separate from specifying when to invoke a service. This allows me to keep my rules language simpler, and for someone else to come up with a highly efficient "service-customization language". -Markus From owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Wed Jun 30 15:01:24 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA06641 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 15:01:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BfkKi-0002kj-MB for opes-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 15:01:24 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BfkJk-0002ML-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 15:00:24 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com ([208.184.76.39]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BfkIh-0001mv-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 14:59:19 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5UIoJl0025921; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 11:50:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i5UIoJEu025920; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 11:50:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from dirty.research.bell-labs.com (dirty.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.6]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5UIoIdM025913 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 11:50:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from markus@mhof.com) Received: from grubby.research.bell-labs.com (H-135-104-2-9.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.9]) by dirty.research.bell-labs.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i5UIoMXJ073700 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 14:50:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from bronx.dnrc.bell-labs.com (bronx.dnrc.bell-labs.com [135.180.160.8]) by grubby.research.bell-labs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5UIoHdj059230 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 14:50:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [135.112.116.14] (biena.ho.lucent.com [135.112.116.14]) by bronx.dnrc.bell-labs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5UIoGEi018028 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 14:50:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <40E30B69.7010205@mhof.com> Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 14:50:17 -0400 From: Markus Hofmann User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7 (Windows/20040616) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-openproxy@imc.org Subject: Re: P work in new charter References: <200406291706.i5TH6wHR010895@localhost.localdomain> <40E2270B.1020307@bell-labs.com> <40E2BE4F.F39EB517@india.hp.com> In-Reply-To: <40E2BE4F.F39EB517@india.hp.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Geetha Manjunath wrote: > * Rule Specification : The filtering services themselves would be provided by > vendors (say, virus scanners) while the configuring conditions (rules) will > be described/specified using the 'P' rule language. Agreed. > * Writing simple filters/actions: While modifying a message to be able to > call several commoditized filters may be one of the examples (Alex), I would > see the need for writing actions more when the actions themselves are very > simple - may be to just put some additional authentication controls onto > services, where the OPES processor would just return a 40x response. These functions are services themselves and should be invoked by the rules, rather then trying to "programm" them in the rules. If a function like "adding of authentication controls" is needed, a little service doing this can be written, and a rule can be specified to invoke this service. > * Writing modules in 'P': Since a set of rules themselves may need to be > reused many a times, we may want to create customized reusable modules in 'P' Thats sounds worthwhile to consider (but already goes beyond the charter discussion perse, I would assume). > (d) defining mechanisms by which a user can communicate rulesets to the OPES > processor. Such mechanism is needed (one might default to existing ones), but out of scope of the WG. -Markus From owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Wed Jun 30 16:35:08 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA15030 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 16:35:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BflnR-0004yS-Ig for opes-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 16:35:09 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Bflfa-0002yl-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 16:27:03 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com ([208.184.76.39]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BflXn-0001Bv-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 16:18:59 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5UK7MEA032158; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 13:07:22 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i5UK7MBN032157; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 13:07:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from measurement-factory.com (measurement-factory.com [206.168.0.5]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5UK7KSR032151 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 13:07:21 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Received: from measurement-factory.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5UK7Op6025649; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 14:07:24 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Received: (from rousskov@localhost) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i5UK7O74025648; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 14:07:24 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 14:07:24 -0600 (MDT) From: Alex Rousskov To: Markus Hofmann cc: ietf-openproxy@imc.org Subject: Re: P work in new charter In-Reply-To: <40E309D4.7010601@mhof.com> Message-ID: References: <200406291706.i5TH6wHR010895@localhost.localdomain> <40E2270B.1020307@bell-labs.com> <40E309D4.7010601@mhof.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 On Wed, 30 Jun 2004, Markus Hofmann wrote: > There is "customaziation" with respect to service invocation and > "customaziation" of the services themselves. Agreed! > In my opinion, the former one is in scope for "P", the latter not. > Customaziation of the actual action is part of the service, and not > of the rules. I agree that it would be nice to separate the two, but I am not sure it is possible. Can you come up with an example of OPES processor selecting a service using some simple P rule and then configuring that service using something other than P? I would like to see if the task of configuring the service can be somehow kept separate from invoking that service... Let's call the service-configuration language "S". Suppose we have service "foo", with three parameters: "a", "b", and "z". You do not foresee something like the "encapsulated" code below, do you? // P code starts is here if (message meets criteria) then { service := services.find("foo"); // still P code service.configure( // P code ends here a = 1; // S code to be passed to the service b = 2; // S code z = message.size; // S code accessing P objects?? <]SCODE]>); // P code resumes here call service(message.body); // P code } Or perhaps you assume that we can configure services statically, regardless of the message context? // services configuration file written in S foo.a = 1; foo.b = 2; //foo.z = message.size; // cannot be done, no context! ----------- // rules file written in P if (message meets criteria) then { service := services.find("foo"); call service(message); // S config loaded; how to set foo.z? } Or is there a better way? Please give an example of how to configure a dynamically selected service in S without tainting P. > Why does customaziation of the services have to happen through "P"? > I don't disagree with the need to customize services, I just see > that separate from specifying when to invoke a service. This allows > me to keep my rules language simpler, and for someone else to come > up with a highly efficient "service-customization language". The customaziation of the services have to happen in P (natively or through embedding S code as in the first example above) because P code is the only place where we know both the service and its invocation context. We cannot configure the service before we know what the service is. And even if we have a static list of services, service configuration may require knowing the invocation context. Here is another example calling (and configuring) an HTTP-unaware content scanning service that needs to know the content MIME type: if (http.message.mime == "application/exe") then call services.scan("Windows binary", http.message.body); else if (http.message.mime == "text/html") then call services.scan("HTML page", http.message.body); How can the above selection/configuration be done without tainting P? Thanks, Alex. P.S. > The scope of OPES is to enable such separation "over a distance", > i.e. define the protocols and mechanisms that will allow you to have > the services remote from the OPES processor. The WG is not in the > business of specifying a "local runtime environment". OPES deals with communication protocols (which could be used between agents on the same "host", different "hosts", or "distant hosts", whatever the "host" means). This should not affect our discussion though. From owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Wed Jun 30 16:38:39 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA15442 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 16:38:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bflqq-0005xD-Q2 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 16:38:40 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BfliW-0003zL-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 16:30:04 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com ([208.184.76.39]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BflaC-00020e-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 16:21:29 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5UKD3dH032638; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 13:13:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i5UKD3uJ032637; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 13:13:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from measurement-factory.com (measurement-factory.com [206.168.0.5]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5UKD2Dg032631 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 13:13:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Received: from measurement-factory.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5UKD7p6026037; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 14:13:07 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Received: (from rousskov@localhost) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i5UKD7MN026036; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 14:13:07 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 14:13:07 -0600 (MDT) From: Alex Rousskov To: Markus Hofmann cc: ietf-openproxy@imc.org Subject: Re: P work in new charter In-Reply-To: <40E30B69.7010205@mhof.com> Message-ID: References: <200406291706.i5TH6wHR010895@localhost.localdomain> <40E2270B.1020307@bell-labs.com> <40E2BE4F.F39EB517@india.hp.com> <40E30B69.7010205@mhof.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 On Wed, 30 Jun 2004, Markus Hofmann wrote: > Geetha Manjunath wrote: > > > * Writing simple filters/actions: While modifying a message to be able to > > call several commoditized filters may be one of the examples (Alex), I would > > see the need for writing actions more when the actions themselves are very > > simple - may be to just put some additional authentication controls onto > > services, where the OPES processor would just return a 40x response. > > These functions are services themselves and should be invoked by the > rules, rather then trying to "programm" them in the rules. > > If a function like "adding of authentication controls" is needed, a > little service doing this can be written, and a rule can be specified > to invoke this service. I agree. > > * Writing modules in 'P': Since a set of rules themselves may > > need to be reused many a times, we may want to create customized > > reusable modules in 'P' > > Thats sounds worthwhile to consider (but already goes beyond the > charter discussion perse, I would assume). We would benefit from explicitly including code reuse (user-defined functions and modules) in P scope, I think. It makes P more complex and more powerful/useful. If this is in the charter, then we would not have to argue again whether the added complexity is worth the benefits. Please note that user-defined functions are NOT user-defined actions. I know I was sloppy about this terminology in the past. > > (d) defining mechanisms by which a user can communicate rulesets > > to the OPES processor. > > Such mechanism is needed (one might default to existing ones), but > out of scope of the WG. Agreed, at least for this iteration of the charter. Alex. From owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Wed Jun 30 18:03:53 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA23361 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 18:03:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BfnBK-0003xm-Ek for opes-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 18:03:54 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BfnAJ-0003Vj-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 18:02:52 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com ([208.184.76.39]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Bfn9P-00034G-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 18:01:55 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5ULoMD7045717; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 14:50:22 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i5ULoMPM045716; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 14:50:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from dirty.research.bell-labs.com (dirty.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.6]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5ULoLSM045709 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 14:50:21 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from markus@mhof.com) Received: from scummy.research.bell-labs.com (H-135-104-2-10.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.10]) by dirty.research.bell-labs.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i5ULoQXJ078965 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 17:50:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from bronx.dnrc.bell-labs.com (bronx.dnrc.bell-labs.com [135.180.160.8]) by scummy.research.bell-labs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5ULoKU1044214 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 17:50:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [135.112.116.14] (biena.ho.lucent.com [135.112.116.14]) by bronx.dnrc.bell-labs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5ULoJEi023542 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 17:50:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <40E3359C.7040706@mhof.com> Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 17:50:20 -0400 From: Markus Hofmann User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7 (Windows/20040616) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-openproxy@imc.org Subject: Re: P work in new charter References: <200406291706.i5TH6wHR010895@localhost.localdomain> <40E2270B.1020307@bell-labs.com> <40E309D4.7010601@mhof.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alex Rousskov wrote: > Let's call the service-configuration language "S". Suppose we have > service "foo", with three parameters: "a", "b", and "z". What about something like // P code starts here if (message meets criteria) then { service := services.find("foo"); call service(message.body, 1, 2, message.size); } assuming the service is defined as a function with four input parameters, e.g foo(body, a, b, z). > You do not foresee something like the "encapsulated" code below, do > you? > > // P code starts is here > if (message meets criteria) then { > service := services.find("foo"); // still P code > service.configure( // P code ends here > a = 1; // S code to be passed to the service > b = 2; // S code > z = message.size; // S code accessing P objects?? > <]SCODE]>); // P code resumes here > call service(message.body); // P code > } The approach with "encapsulated" code would allow me to program the entire service in "P", i.e. using "encapsulated" code to write a virus scanner or anything I want, and then just call a service that does nothing else then executing the "encapsulated" code fragment - not a good idea, IMHO. > Or is there a better way? Please give an example of how to configure a > dynamically selected service in S without tainting P. Maybe we were talking about diferent things... When you talk about "customizing a service", do you mean "passing dynamic input parameters to a service"? If yes, I think we're aligned - I would assume that this is possible (see my example above). If it also includes passing code fragments to the service for execution, I start feeling uncomfortable. > Here is another example calling (and configuring) an HTTP-unaware > content scanning service that needs to know the content MIME type: > > if (http.message.mime == "application/exe") then > call services.scan("Windows binary", http.message.body); > else > if (http.message.mime == "text/html") then > call services.scan("HTML page", http.message.body); > > How can the above selection/configuration be done without tainting P? That makes sense to me and seems to be pretty much in line with the example I gave above. I would consider this ok - this is just calinbg a service with the correct parameters. -Markus From owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Wed Jun 30 18:27:39 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA25890 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 18:27:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BfnYK-00064k-GY for opes-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 18:27:40 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BfnXP-0005dq-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 18:26:43 -0400 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BfnWG-0004pj-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 18:25:32 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com ([208.184.76.39]) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1BfnDW-0005ls-3r for opes-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 18:06:10 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5ULvFYr047072; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 14:57:15 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i5ULvFMu047071; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 14:57:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from dirty.research.bell-labs.com (dirty.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.6]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5ULvEvk047052 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 14:57:15 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from markus@mhof.com) Received: from grubby.research.bell-labs.com (H-135-104-2-9.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.9]) by dirty.research.bell-labs.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i5ULvJXJ079061 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 17:57:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from bronx.dnrc.bell-labs.com (bronx.dnrc.bell-labs.com [135.180.160.8]) by grubby.research.bell-labs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5ULvEdj076369 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 17:57:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [135.112.116.14] (biena.ho.lucent.com [135.112.116.14]) by bronx.dnrc.bell-labs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5ULvEEi023664 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 17:57:14 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <40E3373B.1000804@mhof.com> Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 17:57:15 -0400 From: Markus Hofmann User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7 (Windows/20040616) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-openproxy@imc.org Subject: Re: P work in new charter References: <200406291706.i5TH6wHR010895@localhost.localdomain> <40E2270B.1020307@bell-labs.com> <40E2BE4F.F39EB517@india.hp.com> <40E30B69.7010205@mhof.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alex Rousskov wrote: > We would benefit from explicitly including code reuse (user-defined > functions and modules) in P scope, I think. It makes P more complex > and more powerful/useful. If this is in the charter, then we would not > have to argue again whether the added complexity is worth the > benefits. Not sure whether that kind of detail is needed in a charter - it already gives parts of the solution and might actually make it harder to get it approved. -Markus From owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Wed Jun 30 18:42:28 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA26738 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 18:42:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bfnmg-0003mf-7F for opes-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 18:42:30 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BfnkV-00035D-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 18:40:15 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com ([208.184.76.39]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Bfnih-0002G7-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 18:38:23 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5UMU35J053838; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 15:30:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i5UMU3lf053837; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 15:30:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from measurement-factory.com (measurement-factory.com [206.168.0.5]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5UMU2RD053830 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 15:30:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Received: from measurement-factory.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5UMU7p6036100; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 16:30:07 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Received: (from rousskov@localhost) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i5UMU7De036099; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 16:30:07 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 16:30:07 -0600 (MDT) From: Alex Rousskov To: Markus Hofmann cc: ietf-openproxy@imc.org Subject: Re: P work in new charter In-Reply-To: <40E3359C.7040706@mhof.com> Message-ID: References: <200406291706.i5TH6wHR010895@localhost.localdomain> <40E2270B.1020307@bell-labs.com> <40E309D4.7010601@mhof.com> <40E3359C.7040706@mhof.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 On Wed, 30 Jun 2004, Markus Hofmann wrote: > Maybe we were talking about diferent things... When you talk about > "customizing a service", do you mean "passing dynamic input > parameters to a service"? If yes, I think we're aligned - I would > assume that this is possible (see my example above). Yes, that is what I meant. > If it also includes passing code fragments to the service for > execution, I start feeling uncomfortable. Me too. Glad we are on the same page now. Alex. From owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Wed Jun 30 18:43:28 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA27000 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 18:43:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bfnnd-0004C7-LX for opes-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 18:43:29 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Bfnlz-0003b1-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 18:41:47 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com ([208.184.76.39]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Bfnjf-0002f6-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 18:39:23 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5UMVUXu054139; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 15:31:30 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i5UMVUZL054138; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 15:31:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from measurement-factory.com (measurement-factory.com [206.168.0.5]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5UMVUne054132 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 15:31:30 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Received: from measurement-factory.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5UMVZp6036455; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 16:31:35 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Received: (from rousskov@localhost) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i5UMVZ4t036454; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 16:31:35 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 16:31:35 -0600 (MDT) From: Alex Rousskov To: Markus Hofmann cc: ietf-openproxy@imc.org Subject: Re: P work in new charter In-Reply-To: <40E3373B.1000804@mhof.com> Message-ID: References: <200406291706.i5TH6wHR010895@localhost.localdomain> <40E2270B.1020307@bell-labs.com> <40E2BE4F.F39EB517@india.hp.com> <40E30B69.7010205@mhof.com> <40E3373B.1000804@mhof.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 On Wed, 30 Jun 2004, Markus Hofmann wrote: > > Alex Rousskov wrote: > > > We would benefit from explicitly including code reuse (user-defined > > functions and modules) in P scope, I think. It makes P more complex > > and more powerful/useful. If this is in the charter, then we would not > > have to argue again whether the added complexity is worth the > > benefits. > > Not sure whether that kind of detail is needed in a charter - it > already gives parts of the solution and might actually make it harder > to get it approved. OK. I have no strong feelings about this. Please include whatever you think is appropriate, and we will go from there. Thanks, Alex. From owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Wed Jun 30 19:25:35 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA28779 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 19:25:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BfoSN-0005c4-0o for opes-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 19:25:35 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BfoRN-0005CZ-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 19:24:34 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com ([208.184.76.39]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BfoQP-0004oK-00 for opes-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 19:23:34 -0400 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5UND8Nx062831; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 16:13:08 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i5UND8ZW062830; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 16:13:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from measurement-factory.com (measurement-factory.com [206.168.0.5]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5UND635062818 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 16:13:06 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Received: from measurement-factory.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5UNDBp6039427; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 17:13:11 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Received: (from rousskov@localhost) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i5UNDBGH039426; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 17:13:11 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 17:13:11 -0600 (MDT) From: Alex Rousskov To: Abbie Barbir cc: OPES WG Subject: RE: P work in new charter In-Reply-To: <87AC5F88F03E6249AEA68D40BD3E00BE8F7A16@zcarhxm2.corp.nortel.com> Message-ID: References: <87AC5F88F03E6249AEA68D40BD3E00BE8F7A16@zcarhxm2.corp.nortel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 On Wed, 30 Jun 2004, Abbie Barbir wrote: > I agree with your orchestration example. The point here there are > other work that does that, check CDL in W3C and BPEl in OASIS. My understanding is that CDL is a much higher-level _declaration_ language then an if-condition-then-action procedural P. CDL is also not meant to be written by humans directly. Here is a cryptic CDL example, FWIW: perform choreographyName="CustomerNotifyChoreo" It is possible that P code (especially service configuration code) can be generated based on CDL and other information, but other than that I do not see a significant overlap between P and CDL. Do you? I am even more fuzzy on BPEL. I looked at BPEL4WS specification. It seems to be solving a similar problem we are solving here, but from business interactions point of view. It is very business-specific so I am not sure we can use anything as-is. However, we may be able to use some nice ideas/approaches. If there is an OPES participant who understands BPEL and related languages, please speak up and prevent us from reinventing wheels when possible! Thank you, Alex.