From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Mon Nov 1 20:47:32 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA01860 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 2004 20:47:32 -0500 (EST) 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 iA21iEwV044043 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 2004 17:44:14 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA21iEeB044042 for ietf-usefor-skb; Mon, 1 Nov 2004 17:44:14 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp2.Stanford.EDU (smtp2.Stanford.EDU [171.67.16.125]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iA21iEnw044013 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 2004 17:44:14 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp2.Stanford.EDU (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id iA21iHsb012547 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 2004 17:44:17 -0800 Received: (qmail 27744 invoked by uid 1000); 2 Nov 2004 01:44:17 -0000 To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? In-Reply-To: (Charles Lindsey's message of "Tue, 19 Oct 2004 20:57:44 GMT") References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <417414F5.6020500@isode.com> From: Russ Allbery Organization: The Eyrie Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 17:44:17 -0800 Message-ID: <87sm7t6n4e.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) XEmacs/21.4 (Security Through Obscurity, linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: (Catching up from having been on vacation.) Charles Lindsey writes: > No software generates this header, but lots of software generates the > X-Complaints-To header (and for email too, I believe), which is > essentially identical (but we cannot standardize X-headers). I would be curious to know what software other than INN generates X-Complaints-To. It, like X-Trace, is an INN invention, and I don't know if anyone else has copied it. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Tue Nov 2 07:39:54 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA14350 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 2004 07:39:53 -0500 (EST) 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 iA2Cbd3X002284 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 2004 04:37:39 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA2Cbd6K002283 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 2 Nov 2004 04:37:39 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iA2Cbbjg002270 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 2004 04:37:38 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from alexey.melnikov-usefor@isode.com) Received: from [172.16.0.116] (shiny.isode.com [62.3.217.250]) by rufus.isode.com via TCP (internal) with ESMTPA; Tue, 2 Nov 2004 12:37:34 +0000 Message-ID: <41877F8C.7000402@isode.com> Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 12:37:32 +0000 From: Alexey Melnikov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Russ Allbery CC: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <417414F5.6020500@isode.com> <87sm7t6n4e.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> In-Reply-To: <87sm7t6n4e.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Russ Allbery wrote: >(Catching up from having been on vacation.) > >Charles Lindsey writes: > > >>No software generates this header, but lots of software generates the >>X-Complaints-To header (and for email too, I believe), which is >>essentially identical (but we cannot standardize X-headers). >> >> > >I would be curious to know what software other than INN generates >X-Complaints-To. It, like X-Trace, is an INN invention, and I don't know >if anyone else has copied it. > > At this time I am tempted to say that X-Complaints-To is deprecated and it is function is incorporated into Injection-Info. Alexey From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Tue Nov 2 12:15:29 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA13480 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 2004 12:15:28 -0500 (EST) 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 iA2HCUJY000265 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 2004 09:12:30 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA2HCUS9000264 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 2 Nov 2004 09:12:30 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lon-mail-3.gradwell.net (lon-mail-3.gradwell.net [193.111.201.127]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iA2HCT4Z000257 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 2004 09:12:29 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from host81-144-72-27.midband.mdip.bt.net [81.144.72.27] by lon-mail-3.gradwell.net with esmtp (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.148) id 4187bffe.b3f2.10 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Tue, 2 Nov 2004 17:12:30 +0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id iA2HCFZ28105 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Tue, 2 Nov 2004 17:12:15 GMT To: LIST: ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20244 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <417414F5.6020500@isode.com> <87sm7t6n4e.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 17:00:11 GMT Lines: 53 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <87sm7t6n4e.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Russ Allbery writes: >(Catching up from having been on vacation.) >Charles Lindsey writes: >> No software generates this header, but lots of software generates the >> X-Complaints-To header (and for email too, I believe), which is >> essentially identical (but we cannot standardize X-headers). >I would be curious to know what software other than INN generates >X-Complaints-To. It, like X-Trace, is an INN invention, and I don't know >if anyone else has copied it. A quick poke around part of my newspool revealed 90% of articles using X-Trace, and 40% using X-Complaints-To. Harder to tell which of those were or were not using INN as injecting agent, but I then grepped for Paths of the form ...!example.net.POSTED!not-for-mail, which I think can safely be assumed *not* to have used INN for injecting, and I found examples of the following forms: 202932:X-Complaints-To: abuse@brightview.com 203490:X-Complaints-To: abuse@cv.net 203451:X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net 203105:X-Complaints-To: abuse@nildram.net 202898:X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net 203455:X-Complaints-To: abuse@ptd.net 202656:X-Complaints-To: abuse@readfreenews.com 203485:X-Complaints-To: abuse@rr.com 202848:X-Complaints-To: abuse@virgin.net 202900:X-Complaints-To: abuse@zen.co.uk 202833:X-Complaints-To: http://www.ntlworld.com/netreport and in a separate bit of grepping: X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com Don't worry about the ntlworld one. They are known to be terminally clueless :-( . Perhaps Bill Davidsen could comment on what Prodigy are using. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Tue Nov 2 12:33:08 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA15519 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 2004 12:33:08 -0500 (EST) 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 iA2HUrKA007191 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 2004 09:30:53 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA2HUrV0007190 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 2 Nov 2004 09:30:53 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp2.Stanford.EDU (smtp2.Stanford.EDU [171.67.16.125]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iA2HUqdL007179 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 2004 09:30:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp2.Stanford.EDU (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id iA2HUsUe031851 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 2004 09:30:55 -0800 Received: (qmail 18247 invoked by uid 1000); 2 Nov 2004 17:30:54 -0000 To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? In-Reply-To: (Charles Lindsey's message of "Tue, 2 Nov 2004 17:00:11 GMT") References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <417414F5.6020500@isode.com> <87sm7t6n4e.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> From: Russ Allbery Organization: The Eyrie Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 09:30:54 -0800 Message-ID: <87pt2wyx81.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) XEmacs/21.4 (Security Through Obscurity, linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Charles Lindsey writes: > Harder to tell which of those were or were not using INN as injecting > agent, but I then grepped for Paths of the form > ...!example.net.POSTED!not-for-mail, which I think can safely be assumed > *not* to have used INN for injecting, and I found examples of the > following forms: Not a safe assumption. > Perhaps Bill Davidsen could comment on what Prodigy are using. Prodigy ran INN at least in part, last I'd heard. The count of X-Trace in your sample is suspiciously high, causing me to suspect the integrity of your sample. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Tue Nov 2 15:04:07 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA04368 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 2004 15:04:07 -0500 (EST) 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 iA2K1x9o061541 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 2004 12:01:59 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA2K1wtq061531 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 2 Nov 2004 12:01:58 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iA2K1rni061468 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 2004 12:01:54 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CP4qi-0001J3-00 for ; Tue, 02 Nov 2004 21:01:48 +0100 Received: from du-001-184.access.de.clara.net ([212.82.227.184]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 02 Nov 2004 21:01:48 +0100 Received: from nobody by du-001-184.access.de.clara.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 02 Nov 2004 21:01:48 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 21:00:31 +0100 Organization: Lines: 21 Message-ID: <4187E75F.1099@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <417414F5.6020500@isode.com> <87sm7t6n4e.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <41877F8C.7000402@isode.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: du-001-184.access.de.clara.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alexey Melnikov wrote: > I am tempted to say that X-Complaints-To is deprecated and > it is function is incorporated into Injection-Info. Good riddance. But how am I supposed to derive an abuse address from the Injection-Info ? Without the old examples the new Usefor-01 is gibberish for me. Add news@ to the path-identity maybe ? Is that guaranteed to be good for Injection-info ? What about a news@ wanting abuse reports sent to another address like abuse@ ? For your idea we need at least an example and instructions. 4.1.4 in Useage doesn't help to understand Injection-Info. Usefor-13 before the split was monstrous, OTOH it was clear. It's no more fun to read the split drafts. Bye, Frank From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Wed Nov 3 07:10:19 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA29643 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 2004 07:10:19 -0500 (EST) 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 iA3C7P5I091400 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 2004 04:07:25 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA3C7Pqn091399 for ietf-usefor-skb; Wed, 3 Nov 2004 04:07:25 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iA3C7ObE091276 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 2004 04:07:24 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from alexey.melnikov-usefor@isode.com) Received: from [172.16.0.116] (shiny.isode.com [62.3.217.250]) by rufus.isode.com via TCP (internal) with ESMTPA; Wed, 3 Nov 2004 12:07:14 +0000 Message-ID: <4188C9F0.6020905@isode.com> Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2004 12:07:12 +0000 From: Alexey Melnikov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Frank Ellermann CC: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <417414F5.6020500@isode.com> <87sm7t6n4e.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <41877F8C.7000402@isode.com> <4187E75F.1099@xyzzy.claranet.de> In-Reply-To: <4187E75F.1099@xyzzy.claranet.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Frank Ellermann wrote: >Alexey Melnikov wrote: > > >>I am tempted to say that X-Complaints-To is deprecated and >>it is function is incorporated into Injection-Info. >> >> > >Good riddance. But how am I supposed to derive an abuse >address from the Injection-Info ? Without the old examples >the new Usefor-01 is gibberish for me. > >Add news@ to the path-identity maybe ? Is that guaranteed >to be good for Injection-info ? What about a news@ wanting >abuse reports sent to another address like abuse@ ? > >For your idea we need at least an example and instructions. >4.1.4 in Useage doesn't help to understand Injection-Info. > > Of course, this would be addressed in the upcoming USEFOR document. >Usefor-13 before the split was monstrous, OTOH it was clear. >It's no more fun to read the split drafts. > > From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Wed Nov 3 07:12:28 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA29891 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 2004 07:12:28 -0500 (EST) 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 iA3CB0dd094218 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 2004 04:11:00 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA3CB0HW094217 for ietf-usefor-skb; Wed, 3 Nov 2004 04:11:00 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iA3CAxmv094204 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 2004 04:10:59 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from alexey.melnikov-usefor@isode.com) Received: from [172.16.0.116] (shiny.isode.com [62.3.217.250]) by rufus.isode.com via TCP (internal) with ESMTPA; Wed, 3 Nov 2004 12:10:58 +0000 Message-ID: <4188CAD0.1080902@isode.com> Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2004 12:10:56 +0000 From: Alexey Melnikov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: Frank Ellermann CC: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <417414F5.6020500@isode.com> <87sm7t6n4e.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <41877F8C.7000402@isode.com> <4187E75F.1099@xyzzy.claranet.de> <4188C9F0.6020905@isode.com> In-Reply-To: <4188C9F0.6020905@isode.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alexey Melnikov wrote: > Frank Ellermann wrote: > >> Alexey Melnikov wrote: >> >>> I am tempted to say that X-Complaints-To is deprecated and >>> it is function is incorporated into Injection-Info. >> >> Good riddance. But how am I supposed to derive an abuse >> address from the Injection-Info ? Without the old examples >> the new Usefor-01 is gibberish for me. >> >> Add news@ to the path-identity maybe ? Is that guaranteed >> to be good for Injection-info ? What about a news@ wanting >> abuse reports sent to another address like abuse@ ? >> >> For your idea we need at least an example and instructions. >> 4.1.4 in Useage doesn't help to understand Injection-Info. > > Of course, this would be addressed in the upcoming USEFOR document. Just to clarify: in my original message I was talking conceptually. All affected document will have to be updated. (And I was talking about adding a new field to Injection-Info that would contain an email address.) From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Wed Nov 3 10:36:03 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA20085 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 2004 10:36:02 -0500 (EST) 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 iA3FYBU0083364 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 2004 07:34:12 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA3FYBVO083363 for ietf-usefor-skb; Wed, 3 Nov 2004 07:34:11 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.90]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iA3FYAG4083288 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 2004 07:34:11 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from richard@highwayman.com) Received: from gti.noc.demon.net ([195.11.55.101] helo=rnc1.al.cl.cam.ac.uk) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 4.42) id 1CPN98-000Ain-7R; Wed, 03 Nov 2004 15:34:02 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 15:32:22 +0000 To: Charles Lindsey Cc: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Richard Clayton Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <417414F5.6020500@isode.com> <87sm7t6n4e.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.02 M Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 In message , Charles Lindsey writes >>I would be curious to know what software other than INN generates >>X-Complaints-To. It, like X-Trace, is an INN invention, and I don't know >>if anyone else has copied it. > >A quick poke around part of my newspool revealed 90% of articles using >X-Trace, and 40% using X-Complaints-To. I have a database of approximately 25 million article headers dating from July 26 through to October 18th (this is pretty much a "full feed" of non-binaries for this period: I gathered them from an experimental system running next to the !demon! peering machine) Of these... 3,620,184 (13.8%) have X-Trace 1,033,266 ( 4.0%) have X-Complaints-To 14,422,971 (55.2%) have both 7,049,506 (27.0%) have neither >Harder to tell which of those were or were not using INN as injecting >agent, but I then grepped for Paths of the form >...!example.net.POSTED!not-for-mail, which I think can safely be assumed >*not* to have used INN for injecting, and I found examples of the >following forms: >202932:X-Complaints-To: abuse@brightview.com >203490:X-Complaints-To: abuse@cv.net >203451:X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net >203105:X-Complaints-To: abuse@nildram.net >202898:X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net >203455:X-Complaints-To: abuse@ptd.net >202656:X-Complaints-To: abuse@readfreenews.com >203485:X-Complaints-To: abuse@rr.com >202848:X-Complaints-To: abuse@virgin.net >202900:X-Complaints-To: abuse@zen.co.uk >202833:X-Complaints-To: http://www.ntlworld.com/netreport there's all sorts of other stuff out there... eg X-Complaints-To: Please report abuse to abuse@usenet4all.com but the overwhelming majority are valid looking email addresses. If it is useful I could give an account of what proportion were nicely formed BTW "X-Trace" is a complete mess to parse automatically, so it's use to anyone other than the injection site is limited (and it may in some cases not assist over-much in identifying that site) - -- richard @ highwayman . com "Nothing seems the same Still you never see the change from day to day And no-one notices the customs slip away" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 iQA+AwUBQYj6BhfnRQV/feRLEQJ2SACfQTByvjzpL0+f2tiukTEwsDyY08QAl1FI qZPmDhy8yG33hLP1SArNOy4= =gx9v -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Wed Nov 3 12:14:31 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA28630 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 2004 12:14:30 -0500 (EST) 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 iA3HCfv3026658 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 2004 09:12:42 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA3HCfNt026656 for ietf-usefor-skb; Wed, 3 Nov 2004 09:12:41 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lon-mail-1.gradwell.net (lon-mail-1.gradwell.net [193.111.201.125]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iA3HCeVm026570 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 2004 09:12:41 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from host62-172-28-77.midband.mdip.bt.net [62.172.28.77] by lon-mail-1.gradwell.net with esmtp (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.148) id 41891183.571c.25a for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Wed, 3 Nov 2004 17:12:35 +0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id iA3HCNF07150 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Wed, 3 Nov 2004 17:12:23 GMT To: LIST: ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20250 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <417414F5.6020500@isode.com> <87sm7t6n4e.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <41877F8C.7000402@isode.com> <4187E75F.1099@xyzzy.claranet.de> Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 12:15:55 GMT Lines: 35 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <4187E75F.1099@xyzzy.claranet.de> Frank Ellermann writes: >Alexey Melnikov wrote: >> I am tempted to say that X-Complaints-To is deprecated and >> it is function is incorporated into Injection-Info. >Good riddance. But how am I supposed to derive an abuse >address from the Injection-Info ? Without the old examples >the new Usefor-01 is gibberish for me. Presumably there would be another parameter to the Injection-Info header of the form: Injection-Info: foo.net; ... ; complaints-to="abuse@foo.net"; ... Indeed, that was the original proposal when Injection-Info was first mooted, but the WG decided that it wanted a separate Complaints-To header. I would prefer to stay with that. I think it depends on which headers the "ordinary user" actually needs to see. It could be argued that the rest of the Injection-Info header is mostly for geeks, rather than for ordinary users. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Wed Nov 3 17:42:31 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA28196 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 2004 17:42:30 -0500 (EST) 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 iA3MeeiK060234 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 2004 14:40:40 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA3MeeSY060233 for ietf-usefor-skb; Wed, 3 Nov 2004 14:40:40 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iA3MeacQ060162 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 2004 14:40:37 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CPTns-0004Is-00 for ; Wed, 03 Nov 2004 23:40:32 +0100 Received: from c-134-93-84.hh.dial.de.ignite.net ([62.134.93.84]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 03 Nov 2004 23:40:32 +0100 Received: from nobody by c-134-93-84.hh.dial.de.ignite.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 03 Nov 2004 23:40:32 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2004 23:39:42 +0100 Organization: Lines: 13 Message-ID: <41895E2E.5C57@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <417414F5.6020500@isode.com> <87sm7t6n4e.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <41877F8C.7000402@isode.com> <4187E75F.1099@xyzzy.claranet.de> <4188C9F0.6020905@isode.com> <4188CAD0.1080902@isode.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: c-134-93-84.hh.dial.de.ignite.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alexey Melnikov wrote: > I was talking about adding a new field to Injection-Info Okay, then it's clear, and Charles said the same. I like this proposal, it's less trouble to catch _one_ forged header with all the injection info (for injecting agents). The geeks will love it, as Charles said, and only geeks need the complaint address. And for spammers it's more difficult to forge the complete Injection-Info. Besides I like KISS instead of "yet another header". Bye, Frank From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Wed Nov 3 17:50:47 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA28963 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 2004 17:50:46 -0500 (EST) 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 iA3MnnW2063576 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 2004 14:49:49 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA3MnnGq063575 for ietf-usefor-skb; Wed, 3 Nov 2004 14:49:49 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp3.Stanford.EDU (smtp3.Stanford.EDU [171.67.16.138]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iA3MnnFb063569 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 2004 14:49:49 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp3.Stanford.EDU (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id iA3Mnrn2018328 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 2004 14:49:53 -0800 Received: (qmail 5729 invoked by uid 1000); 3 Nov 2004 22:49:53 -0000 To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? In-Reply-To: <41895E2E.5C57@xyzzy.claranet.de> (Frank Ellermann's message of "Wed, 03 Nov 2004 23:39:42 +0100") References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <417414F5.6020500@isode.com> <87sm7t6n4e.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <41877F8C.7000402@isode.com> <4187E75F.1099@xyzzy.claranet.de> <4188C9F0.6020905@isode.com> <4188CAD0.1080902@isode.com> <41895E2E.5C57@xyzzy.claranet.de> From: Russ Allbery Organization: The Eyrie Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2004 14:49:53 -0800 Message-ID: <87sm7qwnse.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) XEmacs/21.4 (Security Through Obscurity, linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Frank Ellermann writes: > Okay, then it's clear, and Charles said the same. I like > this proposal, it's less trouble to catch _one_ forged > header with all the injection info (for injecting agents). > The geeks will love it, as Charles said, and only geeks > need the complaint address. And for spammers it's more > difficult to forge the complete Injection-Info. Besides > I like KISS instead of "yet another header". Bye, Frank I'm not particularly a fan of Injection-Info, but I'm willing to keep it around as a compromise and given that, I think it probably does make sense to combine the two. I still do think that the complaint parameter, however we represent it, should be a URL rather than an e-mail address. This is one of those principals like not imposing arbitrary limits on fields. A URL is more general and more flexible than an e-mail address; I don't know if, ten years down the road, we'll regret having only an e-mail address or will want a URL, but I don't see any reason to risk it. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Thu Nov 4 09:54:47 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA26530 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 2004 09:54:46 -0500 (EST) 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 iA4EqIGW096080 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 2004 06:52:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA4EqIFL096079 for ietf-usefor-skb; Thu, 4 Nov 2004 06:52:18 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iA4EqFOW096069 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 2004 06:52:16 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CPiyH-0005iz-00 for ; Thu, 04 Nov 2004 15:52:17 +0100 Received: from c-134-93-89.hh.dial.de.ignite.net ([62.134.93.89]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 04 Nov 2004 15:52:17 +0100 Received: from nobody by c-134-93-89.hh.dial.de.ignite.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 04 Nov 2004 15:52:17 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 15:50:28 +0100 Organization: Lines: 34 Message-ID: <418A41B4.7498@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <417414F5.6020500@isode.com> <87sm7t6n4e.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <41877F8C.7000402@isode.com> <4187E75F.1099@xyzzy.claranet.de> <4188C9F0.6020905@isode.com> <4188CAD0.1080902@isode.com> <41895E2E.5C57@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87sm7qwnse.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: c-134-93-89.hh.dial.de.ignite.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Russ Allbery wrote: > I'm not particularly a fan of Injection-Info, but I'm willing > to keep it around as a compromise and given that, I think it > probably does make sense to combine the two. And I'm no fan of your URL idea, but with a MIME parameter in Injection-Info you're very near to your goal: You could use the format in RfC 2017 with its folding rules. Don't mention RfC 2231, or I'd continue my whining about complaint URLs ;-) > not imposing arbitrary limits on fields. A URL is more > general and more flexible than an e-mail address; I don't > know if, ten years down the road, we'll regret having only > an e-mail address or will want a URL That's why you want a URL, because we'll regret it as soon as it's available. Injection-Info: stuff; more=stuff; abuse-reports*1="mailto:" abuse-reports*2="news%40funny.example" abuse-reports*3="?subject=complaint%20about%20" abuse-reports*4="Message-ID%20%3Crandom+timestamp%40" abuse-reports*5="spammer.domain.example%3E&Cc=" abuse-reports*6="abuse%40news.funny.example" Flexible indeed. And several pages of security considerations plus an appendix I "IRIs in the abuse-reports parameter of Injection-Info". At least nobody wanted XML and a schema for Injection-Info, today you never know ;-) Bye, Frank From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Thu Nov 4 11:26:46 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA06742 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 2004 11:26:45 -0500 (EST) 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 iA4GP90M028438 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 2004 08:25:09 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA4GP9u4028436 for ietf-usefor-skb; Thu, 4 Nov 2004 08:25:09 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp3.Stanford.EDU (smtp3.Stanford.EDU [171.67.16.138]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iA4GP9Hd028429 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 2004 08:25:09 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp3.Stanford.EDU (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id iA4GPB7a006052 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 2004 08:25:11 -0800 Received: (qmail 32305 invoked by uid 1000); 4 Nov 2004 16:25:11 -0000 To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? In-Reply-To: <418A41B4.7498@xyzzy.claranet.de> (Frank Ellermann's message of "Thu, 04 Nov 2004 15:50:28 +0100") References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <417414F5.6020500@isode.com> <87sm7t6n4e.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <41877F8C.7000402@isode.com> <4187E75F.1099@xyzzy.claranet.de> <4188C9F0.6020905@isode.com> <4188CAD0.1080902@isode.com> <41895E2E.5C57@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87sm7qwnse.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <418A41B4.7498@xyzzy.claranet.de> From: Russ Allbery Organization: The Eyrie Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 08:25:11 -0800 Message-ID: <87u0s5oa3c.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) XEmacs/21.4 (Security Through Obscurity, linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Frank Ellermann writes: > That's why you want a URL, because we'll regret it as soon as > it's available. > Injection-Info: > stuff; more=stuff; abuse-reports*1="mailto:" > abuse-reports*2="news%40funny.example" > abuse-reports*3="?subject=complaint%20about%20" > abuse-reports*4="Message-ID%20%3Crandom+timestamp%40" > abuse-reports*5="spammer.domain.example%3E&Cc=" > abuse-reports*6="abuse%40news.funny.example" > Flexible indeed. How is this any worse than not providing a complaints-to address at all? Most of what makes that look like such a mess, of course, is the decision to use MIME-style parameters for Injection-Info, not anything about the content of the abuse-reports parameter. > And several pages of security considerations plus an appendix I "IRIs in > the abuse-reports parameter of Injection-Info". I believe that the security considerations of visiting URLs are already dealt with in adequate depth by other RFCs that we can simply refer to, although I've not checked personally. However, if people would prefer to have both an email and a url parameter, that would also be fine with me. And I have no problem with lots of ranting against using anything other than a simple mailto URL in the USEAGE document. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Thu Nov 4 12:13:40 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA12508 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 2004 12:13:39 -0500 (EST) 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 iA4HCZfM049498 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 2004 09:12:35 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA4HCZJs049497 for ietf-usefor-skb; Thu, 4 Nov 2004 09:12:35 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lon-mail-3.gradwell.net (lon-mail-3.gradwell.net [193.111.201.127]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iA4HCY88049482 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 2004 09:12:34 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from host81-144-72-189.midband.mdip.bt.net [81.144.72.189] by lon-mail-3.gradwell.net with esmtp (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.151) id 418a6304.13db4.2 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Thu, 4 Nov 2004 17:12:36 +0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id iA4HCNr17760 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Thu, 4 Nov 2004 17:12:23 GMT To: LIST: ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20254 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <417414F5.6020500@isode.com> <87sm7t6n4e.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <41877F8C.7000402@isode.com> <4187E75F.1099@xyzzy.claranet.de> <4188C9F0.6020905@isode.com> <4188CAD0.1080902@isode.com> <41895E2E.5C57@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87sm7qwnse.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 16:20:04 GMT Lines: 46 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <87sm7qwnse.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Russ Allbery writes: >Frank Ellermann writes: >> Okay, then it's clear, and Charles said the same. I like >> this proposal, it's less trouble to catch _one_ forged >> header with all the injection info (for injecting agents). >> The geeks will love it, as Charles said, and only geeks >> need the complaint address. And for spammers it's more >> difficult to forge the complete Injection-Info. Besides >> I like KISS instead of "yet another header". Bye, Frank >I'm not particularly a fan of Injection-Info, but I'm willing to keep it >around as a compromise and given that, I think it probably does make sense >to combine the two. >I still do think that the complaint parameter, however we represent it, >should be a URL rather than an e-mail address. This is one of those >principals like not imposing arbitrary limits on fields. A URL is more >general and more flexible than an e-mail address; I don't know if, ten >years down the road, we'll regret having only an e-mail address or will >want a URL, but I don't see any reason to risk it. The people who were arguing against URLs were really arguing against URLs that pointed to web sites (like the ntlworld one that I quoted). It needs to be made clear that Netnews and the Web are different media, and things must be so that a user who has News access but no Web access is not disadvantaged. Now if we were to restrict the URL to be only 'mailto', then I might buy it, but then you have the problem that if you give them an inch the more clueless providers out there will just take a mile and use 'http' URLs, legally or not. So my preference is to leave it as just the email address (and using a Complaints-To header just to emphasise the point). -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Thu Nov 4 12:13:42 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA12526 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 2004 12:13:41 -0500 (EST) 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 iA4HCXc2049480 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 2004 09:12:33 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA4HCXwh049479 for ietf-usefor-skb; Thu, 4 Nov 2004 09:12:33 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lon-mail-3.gradwell.net (lon-mail-3.gradwell.net [193.111.201.127]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iA4HCW2B049471 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 2004 09:12:33 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from host81-144-72-189.midband.mdip.bt.net [81.144.72.189] by lon-mail-3.gradwell.net with esmtp (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.151) id 418a6302.13db4.0 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Thu, 4 Nov 2004 17:12:34 +0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id iA4HCOe17772 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Thu, 4 Nov 2004 17:12:24 GMT To: LIST: ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20256 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Usefor Web Site Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 16:28:09 GMT Lines: 20 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: www.imc.org/ietf-usefor now contains all the documents and other links that were present on the Landfield site. It also contains the last two years of archives in html from the old mailing list, and the whole archive in mbox format. I shall transfer the rest of the html archives presently (but I need to write some scripts first), and then the Landfield site can finally be abandoned (I shall, of course, leave a pointer to the new site there). -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Thu Nov 4 12:13:57 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA12547 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 2004 12:13:56 -0500 (EST) 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 iA4HCYFu049490 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 2004 09:12:34 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA4HCYKI049489 for ietf-usefor-skb; Thu, 4 Nov 2004 09:12:34 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lon-mail-3.gradwell.net (lon-mail-3.gradwell.net [193.111.201.127]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iA4HCXYI049473 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 2004 09:12:33 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from host81-144-72-189.midband.mdip.bt.net [81.144.72.189] by lon-mail-3.gradwell.net with esmtp (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.151) id 418a6303.13db4.1 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Thu, 4 Nov 2004 17:12:35 +0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id iA4HCNe17767 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Thu, 4 Nov 2004 17:12:24 GMT To: LIST: ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20255 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <417414F5.6020500@isode.com> <87sm7t6n4e.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 16:23:43 GMT Lines: 28 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In Richard Clayton writes: >In message , Charles Lindsey > writes >>202833:X-Complaints-To: http://www.ntlworld.com/netreport >there's all sorts of other stuff out there... eg > X-Complaints-To: Please report abuse to abuse@usenet4all.com >but the overwhelming majority are valid looking email addresses. If it >is useful I could give an account of what proportion were nicely formed For a header that is nowhere documented officially, that is not bad going. Of course, if we bless it with standardization, then the malformed ones should wither away over time (and with the throwing of suitable LARTs). -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Thu Nov 4 22:14:41 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA11337 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 2004 22:14:41 -0500 (EST) 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 iA53Cb7b086674 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 2004 19:12:37 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA53CbU3086670 for ietf-usefor-skb; Thu, 4 Nov 2004 19:12:37 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp809.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp809.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.199]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id iA53CZtD086617 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 2004 19:12:36 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-71-164.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.71.164 with poptime) by smtp809.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 5 Nov 2004 03:12:20 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id iA53CAB22387 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 03:12:10 GMT To: LIST: ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20259 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Path Punctuation summary Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Message-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 21:35:49 GMT Lines: 117 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I first posted this in the middle of August, when I was away from home (which maybe explains why it never made it to the list). So when I was home again, and it was clear that it had not made it, I posted it again on August 27th. I don't know whether it made it that time (did any of you see it?), but what is clear is that Landfield was in a bad state at that time because nothing had been archived since August 13th. At some later stage, in the middle of September, some of the missing articles miraculously appeared in the Archive, but not this one (and I think serveral other people's must be missing also because the archive is showing only two messages posted at all in the last 5 days of August). So here it is again, for the third time :-( . There was earlier discussion concerning which delimiters could be used on the Path header, having regard to the vagueness of the word "punctuation" as used in RFC 1036. Given that the checks we have put into the Path-header are generally agreed to be desirable for tracing the origin of scams of various sorts, and that the principle problem seems to be whether the characters proposed as delimiters for this purpose would cause problems with existing implementations, here is a summary of some of the options we could consider. First, the scheme as proposed requires that relaying agents should be able to make the following assertions when they add a new path-identity to the Path-header: #1 I am the injecting site. #2 I have checked the identity of the previous site, and I believe the path-identity inserted by that site to be correct. #3 I have checked the identity of the previous site, and I do not believe the path-identity claimed by that site; here is what I believe to be the true identity of that site. #4 I have made no checks on the identity of the previous site. In the following running example injector.com always uses #1 new-site.com always uses #2 or #3 good-site.com always uses #2 or #3 old-site always uses #4 dodgy.com was a bogus identity actually inserted by mallet.com A. Current draft: ----------------- Uses '%' for #1, '/' for #2, '?' for #3 amd '!' for #4 Path: good-site.com/mallet.com?dodgy.com!old-site.com! new-site.com/injector.com%not-for-mail B. Henry's proposal : ------------------------------------------------------------------ Uses '@' for #1, ',' for #2, ' ' for #3 amd '!' for #4, since it is clear from RFC 1036 that all of those are intended to be usable as delimiters. Path: good-site.com,mallet.com dodgy.com!old-site.com! new-site.com,injector.com@not-for-mail Observe that the ' ' delimiter turns up rather conveniently as a separator between the correct and bogus identities of mallet.com. One would need to discuss whether FWS as well as SP should delimit this case. C. The Diablo scheme -------------------- I still have not been able to find documentation on this, but from observed instances it appears to work as follows: Path: good-site.com!mallet.com.MISMATCH!dodgy.com!old-site.com! new-site.com!injector.com.POSTED!not-for-mail I see 2 problems with this one: 1: Any site which peers with injector.com (e.g. new-site.com) would normally scan the received Path for occurrences of "injector.com", and would send the article back to injector.com if it was not found (which, of course, it isn't here ecause it recorded itself as "injector.com.POSTED"). 2: It provides no distinction betwen cases #2 and #4, which rather defeats the object of the whole exercise. D. Another possible scheme -------------------------- If you want to avoid all delimiters other than '!', and to overcome the problems with the Diablo scheme, then here is one which relies on special keywords "M", "MISMATCH" and "POSTED" in places where the current syntax would expect a path-identity. Path: good-site.com!M!mallet.com!MISMATCH!dodgy.com!old-site.com! new-site.com!M!injector.com!POSTED!not-for-mail It makes the Path a little longer, but not unacceptably so, and assumes that those keywords will never represent real sites. Comments? I think I would prefer Henry's scheme out of that bunch, but there might also be the possibility of using some of the other delimiters known to be used in the BNews implementation, which Bruce considers might be safe. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Fri Nov 5 07:19:56 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA05747 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 07:19:56 -0500 (EST) 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 iA5CINhl029064 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 04:18:23 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA5CINo9029062 for ietf-usefor-skb; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 04:18:23 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iA5CIJ8o028890 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 04:18:19 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CQ32h-0005bv-00 for ; Fri, 05 Nov 2004 13:18:11 +0100 Received: from c-134-88-38.hh.dial.de.ignite.net ([62.134.88.38]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 05 Nov 2004 13:18:11 +0100 Received: from nobody by c-134-88-38.hh.dial.de.ignite.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 05 Nov 2004 13:18:11 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2004 13:16:33 +0100 Organization: Lines: 40 Message-ID: <418B6F21.5A5D@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <417414F5.6020500@isode.com> <87sm7t6n4e.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <41877F8C.7000402@isode.com> <4187E75F.1099@xyzzy.claranet.de> <4188C9F0.6020905@isode.com> <4188CAD0.1080902@isode.com> <41895E2E.5C57@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87sm7qwnse.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <418A41B4.7498@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87u0s5oa3c.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: c-134-88-38.hh.dial.de.ignite.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Russ Allbery wrote: [weird mailto: abuse URL as multiline 2231 parameter] > How is this any worse than not providing a complaints-to > address at all? The alternative is a plain mailbox address, not "no abuse address at all". >> several pages of security considerations plus an appendix I >> "IRIs in the abuse-reports parameter of Injection-Info". > I believe that the security considerations of visiting URLs > are already dealt with in adequate depth by other RFCs that > we can simply refer to, Probably, 2396bis is already in the RfC-editor queue. But I'm lost with IRIs, all I know for sure about IRIs is "this doesn't work with my good old Mozilla 3 without UTF-8". > However, if people would prefer to have both an email and a > url parameter, that would also be fine with me. That would cover GMaNe, your article has the following headers: X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1099585603 14799 80.91.229.6 (4 Nov 2004 16:26:43 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 16:26:43 +0000 (UTC) X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.usenet.format:27779 Please don't click on the link, "unreporting" reported spam with GMaNe can be tricky. With both formats in Injection-Info GMaNe could replace four headers by a single header. And it would be easy to replace this stuff if it's reinjected somehow elsewhere. Bye, Frank From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Fri Nov 5 07:35:00 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA07162 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 07:35:00 -0500 (EST) 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 iA5CXuUf039825 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 04:33:56 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA5CXuq6039824 for ietf-usefor-skb; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 04:33:56 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iA5CXs5K039811 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 04:33:55 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CQ3Hv-0006Z7-00 for ; Fri, 05 Nov 2004 13:33:55 +0100 Received: from c-134-88-38.hh.dial.de.ignite.net ([62.134.88.38]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 05 Nov 2004 13:33:55 +0100 Received: from nobody by c-134-88-38.hh.dial.de.ignite.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 05 Nov 2004 13:33:55 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2004 13:33:02 +0100 Organization: Lines: 19 Message-ID: <418B72FE.2420@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <417414F5.6020500@isode.com> <87sm7t6n4e.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: c-134-88-38.hh.dial.de.ignite.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Charles Lindsey wrote: > Of course, if we bless it with standardization, then the > malformed ones should wither away over time (and with the > throwing of suitable LARTs). A new Whatever: doesn't exist yet, and as soon as it exists getting rid of a few malformed Whatever: should be easy. But IMHO you can't "deprecate" old X-Whatever:, because I'm free to invent and use X-Whatever: in any form I like. No X-Whatever: can be "malformed", it's unstructured gibberish. I've seen the same idea of "deprecating" X-Archived-At:, but AFAIK that's not how it's supposed to work. Please correct me if my idea of X- headers is wrong. Bye, Frank From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Fri Nov 5 08:15:29 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA10440 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 08:15:28 -0500 (EST) 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 iA5DEHl1057716 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 05:14:17 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA5DEHnc057715 for ietf-usefor-skb; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 05:14:17 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iA5DEGrE057697 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 05:14:16 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CQ3uz-00014p-00 for ; Fri, 05 Nov 2004 14:14:17 +0100 Received: from c-134-88-38.hh.dial.de.ignite.net ([62.134.88.38]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 05 Nov 2004 14:14:17 +0100 Received: from nobody by c-134-88-38.hh.dial.de.ignite.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 05 Nov 2004 14:14:17 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Path Punctuation summary Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2004 14:12:47 +0100 Organization: Lines: 35 Message-ID: <418B7C4F.86C@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: c-134-88-38.hh.dial.de.ignite.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Charles Lindsey wrote: > I think I would prefer Henry's scheme out of that bunch Yes, it's nice. For a scheme based on s-o-1036 (only "!") like POSTED and MISMATCH I'd prefer other "keywords": POSTED => LOCALHOST MISMATCH => INVALID But TEST for M would result in messy Path: headers, that idea probably can't fly. I don't like M, MISMATCH, and POSTED because it's very near to odd cases like host TV. tv = 65.201.175.144 The poor TV has a serious problem with a bug (?) in 2821: | A domain (or domain name) consists of one or more | dot-separated components. True. | The domain name, as described in this document and in [22], | is the entire, fully-qualified name (often referred to as | an "FQDN"). True, [22] is 1035 resp. Std 13 | Domain = (sub-domain 1*("." sub-domain)) / address-literal But that's wrong, or isn't it ? There's no dot in FQDN tv. Bye, Frank From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Fri Nov 5 12:15:12 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA29687 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 12:15:12 -0500 (EST) 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 iA5HCWJQ043397 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 09:12:32 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA5HCWl5043396 for ietf-usefor-skb; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 09:12:32 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp1.Stanford.EDU (smtp1.Stanford.EDU [171.67.16.123]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iA5HCWgU043390 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 09:12:32 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp1.Stanford.EDU (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id iA5HCX58004833 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 09:12:34 -0800 Received: (qmail 6446 invoked by uid 1000); 5 Nov 2004 17:12:33 -0000 To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? In-Reply-To: <418B72FE.2420@xyzzy.claranet.de> (Frank Ellermann's message of "Fri, 05 Nov 2004 13:33:02 +0100") References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <417414F5.6020500@isode.com> <87sm7t6n4e.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <418B72FE.2420@xyzzy.claranet.de> From: Russ Allbery Organization: The Eyrie Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2004 09:12:33 -0800 Message-ID: <87k6t0rzi6.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) XEmacs/21.4 (Security Through Obscurity, linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Frank Ellermann writes: > But IMHO you can't "deprecate" old X-Whatever:, because I'm > free to invent and use X-Whatever: in any form I like. No > X-Whatever: can be "malformed", it's unstructured gibberish. Headers beginning with X-* have no special meaning or significance as of RFC 2822. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Fri Nov 5 12:15:14 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA29706 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 12:15:13 -0500 (EST) 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 iA5HBxJd043246 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 09:11:59 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA5HBx66043245 for ietf-usefor-skb; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 09:11:59 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp1.Stanford.EDU (smtp1.Stanford.EDU [171.67.16.123]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iA5HBwPl043239 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 09:11:58 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp1.Stanford.EDU (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id iA5HBxg5004660 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 09:12:00 -0800 Received: (qmail 6431 invoked by uid 1000); 5 Nov 2004 17:11:59 -0000 To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? In-Reply-To: <418B6F21.5A5D@xyzzy.claranet.de> (Frank Ellermann's message of "Fri, 05 Nov 2004 13:16:33 +0100") References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <417414F5.6020500@isode.com> <87sm7t6n4e.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <41877F8C.7000402@isode.com> <4187E75F.1099@xyzzy.claranet.de> <4188C9F0.6020905@isode.com> <4188CAD0.1080902@isode.com> <41895E2E.5C57@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87sm7qwnse.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <418A41B4.7498@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87u0s5oa3c.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <418B6F21.5A5D@xyzzy.claranet.de> From: Russ Allbery Organization: The Eyrie Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2004 09:11:59 -0800 Message-ID: <87oeicrzj4.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) XEmacs/21.4 (Security Through Obscurity, linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Frank Ellermann writes: > Russ Allbery wrote: > [weird mailto: abuse URL as multiline 2231 parameter] >> How is this any worse than not providing a complaints-to >> address at all? > The alternative is a plain mailbox address, not "no abuse > address at all". Why do you think that? I don't understand why anyone thinks that banning URLs is going to convince ISPs to provide plain mailbox addresses as abuse reporting venues when they wanted to use a web form. If I were an ISP convinced I wanted to use a web form, requiring an address would just mean that I didn't provide that parameter and instead added some other header with the URL. I understand the behavior that people want to modify here, but the way in which people are trying to go about modifying behavior is, frankly, not going to work, and hurts our future flexibility. > That would cover GMaNe, your article has the following headers: > X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org > X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1099585603 14799 80.91.229.6 > (4 Nov 2004 16:26:43 GMT) > NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org > NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 16:26:43 +0000 (UTC) > X-Report-Spam: > http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.usenet.format:27779 The Gmane X-Report-Spam header is something completely different than what we're talking about, unless I'm seriously mistaken as to what it's for. I believe that it is for collaborative spam filtering, not for abuse complaints. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Fri Nov 5 15:10:49 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA12622 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 15:10:49 -0500 (EST) 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 iA5K9F6M017866 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 12:09:15 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA5K9Fni017865 for ietf-usefor-skb; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 12:09:15 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iA5K9DIA017835 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 12:09:14 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CQAOb-0004z9-00 for ; Fri, 05 Nov 2004 21:09:17 +0100 Received: from c-134-88-38.hh.dial.de.ignite.net ([62.134.88.38]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 05 Nov 2004 21:09:17 +0100 Received: from nobody by c-134-88-38.hh.dial.de.ignite.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 05 Nov 2004 21:09:17 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2004 21:04:31 +0100 Organization: Lines: 32 Message-ID: <418BDCCF.4860@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <417414F5.6020500@isode.com> <87sm7t6n4e.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <41877F8C.7000402@isode.com> <4187E75F.1099@xyzzy.claranet.de> <4188C9F0.6020905@isode.com> <4188CAD0.1080902@isode.com> <41895E2E.5C57@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87sm7qwnse.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <418A41B4.7498@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87u0s5oa3c.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <418B6F21.5A5D@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87oeicrzj4.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: c-134-88-38.hh.dial.de.ignite.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Russ Allbery wrote: > If I were an ISP convinced I wanted to use a web form, > requiring an address would just mean that I didn't provide > that parameter and instead added some other header with the > URL. And I'd use mail to news@, usenet@, and abuse@ anyway. Maybe with a copy to nanas, depends on how upset I am. If you think that URLs are no problem no matter what the RfC says, then why officially sanction it ? Alexej's idea was to get rid of the dubious Complaints-To: instead of the common X-Complaints-To:, and the latter is a mailbox address (minus the one case of bad prosa found by Charles). > I understand the behavior that people want to modify here It's not a modification, at the moment there are no URLs in X-Complaints-To: [Gmane X-Report-Spam] > I believe that it is for collaborative spam filtering, not > for abuse complaints. Yes, it's related to spam filtering, the admins see reported links, and if they confirm it the article is deleted, or the pseudo-group gmane.spam.detected is added to the Newsgroups:, I'm not sure. It's essentially what I'd expect from your URL idea. And reporting spam is a form of abuse complaint. Bye, Frank From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Fri Nov 5 15:48:56 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA16141 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 15:48:55 -0500 (EST) 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 iA5KlA4A037338 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 12:47:10 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA5KlAZa037337 for ietf-usefor-skb; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 12:47:10 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp2.Stanford.EDU (smtp2.Stanford.EDU [171.67.16.125]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iA5Kl9Qi037322 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 12:47:09 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp2.Stanford.EDU (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id iA5KlB9L027142 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 12:47:12 -0800 Received: (qmail 12339 invoked by uid 1000); 5 Nov 2004 20:47:11 -0000 To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? In-Reply-To: <418BDCCF.4860@xyzzy.claranet.de> (Frank Ellermann's message of "Fri, 05 Nov 2004 21:04:31 +0100") References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <417414F5.6020500@isode.com> <87sm7t6n4e.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <41877F8C.7000402@isode.com> <4187E75F.1099@xyzzy.claranet.de> <4188C9F0.6020905@isode.com> <4188CAD0.1080902@isode.com> <41895E2E.5C57@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87sm7qwnse.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <418A41B4.7498@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87u0s5oa3c.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <418B6F21.5A5D@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87oeicrzj4.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <418BDCCF.4860@xyzzy.claranet.de> From: Russ Allbery Organization: The Eyrie Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2004 12:47:11 -0800 Message-ID: <87hdo4yqeo.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) XEmacs/21.4 (Security Through Obscurity, linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Frank Ellermann writes: > Yes, it's related to spam filtering, the admins see reported > links, and if they confirm it the article is deleted, or the > pseudo-group gmane.spam.detected is added to the Newsgroups:, > I'm not sure. It's essentially what I'd expect from your URL > idea. And reporting spam is a form of abuse complaint. You and I seem to be talking about such completely different things that I'm not quite sure what more to say. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Fri Nov 5 22:16:26 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA17639 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 22:16:25 -0500 (EST) 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 iA63Cld1096158 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 19:12:47 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA63ClPm096157 for ietf-usefor-skb; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 19:12:47 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp812.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp812.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.202]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id iA63CkF3096124 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 19:12:46 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-69-54.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.69.54 with poptime) by smtp812.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 6 Nov 2004 03:12:31 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id iA63CBH01131 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Sat, 6 Nov 2004 03:12:11 GMT To: LIST: ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20263 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <417414F5.6020500@isode.com> <87sm7t6n4e.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <41877F8C.7000402@isode.com> <4187E75F.1099@xyzzy.claranet.de> <4188C9F0.6020905@isode.com> <4188CAD0.1080902@isode.com> <41895E2E.5C57@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87sm7qwnse.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <418A41B4.7498@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87u0s5oa3c.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 17:36:12 GMT Lines: 59 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <87u0s5oa3c.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Russ Allbery writes: >Frank Ellermann writes: >> That's why you want a URL, because we'll regret it as soon as >> it's available. >> Injection-Info: >> stuff; more=stuff; abuse-reports*1="mailto:" >> abuse-reports*2="news%40funny.example" >> abuse-reports*3="?subject=complaint%20about%20" >> abuse-reports*4="Message-ID%20%3Crandom+timestamp%40" >> abuse-reports*5="spammer.domain.example%3E&Cc=" >> abuse-reports*6="abuse%40news.funny.example" >> Flexible indeed. Ah! An ideal format for those providers who don't actually want anybody to send them any abuse reports :-) . And who will not recognize Subject: complaint%20about%20Message-ID%20%3Crandom+timestamp%40spammer.domain.example%3E&Cc=abuse%40news.funny.example if some naive user just cuts and pastes it from the URL like that. Actually, there is no real reason ever to use the RFC 2231 parameter splitting in News, because we do not allow transports to arbitrarily refold anythong over 78 characters in length, and quite honestly I would rather see Injection-Info: stuff; more=stuff; abuse-reports="mailto:news@funny.example?subject=complaint%20about%20Message-ID%20%3Crandom+timestamp%40spammer.domain.example%3E&Cc=abuse%40news.funny.example" on one long line and view it with whatever wrapping/scroolbar/etc my browser provided me with. >How is this any worse than not providing a complaints-to address at all? But nobody is suggesting that. The alternative suggestion is just an email address (and preferably to my taste in a Complaints-To header). >However, if people would prefer to have both an email and a url parameter, >that would also be fine with me. And I have no problem with lots of >ranting against using anything other than a simple mailto URL in the >USEAGE document. I don't want "ranting against". I would want MUST NOT. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Fri Nov 5 22:42:32 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA19106 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 22:42:32 -0500 (EST) 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 iA63ephr007116 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 19:40:51 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA63epGQ007115 for ietf-usefor-skb; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 19:40:51 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp1.Stanford.EDU (smtp1.Stanford.EDU [171.67.16.123]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iA63eoY5007099 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 19:40:50 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp1.Stanford.EDU (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id iA63etsG022234 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 19:40:56 -0800 Received: (qmail 26774 invoked by uid 1000); 6 Nov 2004 03:40:55 -0000 To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? In-Reply-To: (Charles Lindsey's message of "Fri, 5 Nov 2004 17:36:12 GMT") References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <417414F5.6020500@isode.com> <87sm7t6n4e.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <41877F8C.7000402@isode.com> <4187E75F.1099@xyzzy.claranet.de> <4188C9F0.6020905@isode.com> <4188CAD0.1080902@isode.com> <41895E2E.5C57@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87sm7qwnse.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <418A41B4.7498@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87u0s5oa3c.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> From: Russ Allbery Organization: The Eyrie Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2004 19:40:55 -0800 Message-ID: <878y9fprug.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) XEmacs/21.4 (Security Through Obscurity, linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Charles Lindsey writes: > Actually, there is no real reason ever to use the RFC 2231 parameter > splitting in News, because we do not allow transports to arbitrarily > refold anythong over 78 characters in length, and quite honestly I would > rather see We need to stay compatible with mail. >> How is this any worse than not providing a complaints-to address at all? > But nobody is suggesting that. The alternative suggestion is just an > email address (and preferably to my taste in a Complaints-To header). This may be the case in the ideal world that you're imagining, but in practice that won't be how it works. You are not going to convince a site that does not want to provide an e-mail abuse reporting address to provide one by not allowing them to provide a URL. > I don't want "ranting against". I would want MUST NOT. Then we have an irreconcilable difference. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Sat Nov 6 10:50:02 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA16840 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 2004 10:50:01 -0500 (EST) 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 iA6FlqsH034829 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 2004 07:47:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA6FlqPM034828 for ietf-usefor-skb; Sat, 6 Nov 2004 07:47:52 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iA6FlmZR034713 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 2004 07:47:49 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CQSn0-0003Gj-00 for ; Sat, 06 Nov 2004 16:47:42 +0100 Received: from du-001-043.access.de.clara.net ([212.82.227.43]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 06 Nov 2004 16:47:42 +0100 Received: from nobody by du-001-043.access.de.clara.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 06 Nov 2004 16:47:42 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2004 16:46:40 +0100 Organization: Lines: 25 Message-ID: <418CF1E0.49F1@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <417414F5.6020500@isode.com> <87sm7t6n4e.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <41877F8C.7000402@isode.com> <4187E75F.1099@xyzzy.claranet.de> <4188C9F0.6020905@isode.com> <4188CAD0.1080902@isode.com> <41895E2E.5C57@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87sm7qwnse.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <418A41B4.7498@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87u0s5oa3c.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: du-001-043.access.de.clara.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by above.proper.com id iA6FlnZR034810 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Charles Lindsey wrote: > there is no real reason ever to use the RFC 2231 parameter > splitting in News That's also true without the "in News" (at least for URLs). > we do not allow transports to arbitrarily refold anythong > over 78 characters in length Yes, and we'd need Martin Dürst to force some encoded words into the URL (or for an IRI). The German translation of "complaint about" would be "Beschwerde über", but I have no idea how to put "ü" in a mailto-URL within a MIME parameter. > I don't want "ranting against". I would want MUST NOT. I'd like to know how this is supposed to work, resulting in MUST NOT if it doesn't work. Otherwise (= Bruce and Martin can solve the "ü" puzzle, and their solution is identical) I could live with SHOULD NOT. Bye, Frank From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Sat Nov 6 14:26:33 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA29217 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 2004 14:26:33 -0500 (EST) 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 iA6JOE0O035687 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 2004 11:24:14 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA6JOEAc035686 for ietf-usefor-skb; Sat, 6 Nov 2004 11:24:14 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.60]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iA6JODMV035678 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 2004 11:24:14 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from blilly@erols.com) X-Info: This message was accepted for relay by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net as the sender used SMTP authentication X-Trace: jwa5bJOsymyU0Y1S81rtlpZO+q4IQ5+tBVsfGIYmXcM= Received: from wireless-12-40-110-93.bryantpark.org ([12.40.110.93] helo=mail.blilly.com) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #7) id 1CQWAb-0004fL-00; Sat, 06 Nov 2004 14:24:17 -0500 Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.blilly.com with ESMTP id iA6JO36F005250(8.12.10/8.12.10/mail.blilly.com sendmail.mc.mail 1.18 2004/05/15 07:23:45) ; Sat, 6 Nov 2004 14:24:11 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by marty.blilly.com with ESMTP id iA6JNvoo005249(8.12.10/8.12.10/blilly.com submit.mc 1.1 2003/08/26 22:21:33) ; Sat, 6 Nov 2004 14:24:10 -0500 From: Bruce Lilly Reply-To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Organization: Bruce Lilly To: Russ Allbery Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 05:15:28 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 Cc: ietf-usefor@imc.org References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <418B72FE.2420@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87k6t0rzi6.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> In-Reply-To: <87k6t0rzi6.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200411060515.28736.blilly@erols.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Fri November 5 2004 12:12, Russ Allbery wrote: > Headers beginning with X-* have no special meaning or significance as of > RFC 2822. There is a significant difference per (full Standard) RFC 822. RFC 2822 is merely a Proposed Standard; RFC 822 remains in effect and will continue to do so until such time as an RFC 2822 successor reaches full Standard status. There is also an explicit part of RFC 2047 concerning user-defined (X-) fields. RFC 2047 is a Draft Standard, one rung up the Standards Track from Proposed Standard and one rung below full Standard. From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Sun Nov 7 14:03:16 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA13497 for ; Sun, 7 Nov 2004 14:03:16 -0500 (EST) 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 iA7J12Ee094899 for ; Sun, 7 Nov 2004 11:01:02 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA7J12nJ094898 for ietf-usefor-skb; Sun, 7 Nov 2004 11:01:02 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp04.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp04.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.63]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iA7J0x6F094879 for ; Sun, 7 Nov 2004 11:00:59 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from blilly@erols.com) X-Info: This message was accepted for relay by smtp04.mrf.mail.rcn.net as the sender used SMTP authentication X-Trace: NFEPE98KMCpiG7KOxSvaL336ueqC943FKejNRTtDtE4= Received: from [12.40.111.107] (port=32918 helo=mail.blilly.com) by smtp04.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.42 #5) id 1CQsHe-0006iD-6O; Sun, 07 Nov 2004 14:01:02 -0500 Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.blilly.com with ESMTP id iA7J0odg006198(8.12.10/8.12.10/mail.blilly.com sendmail.mc.mail 1.18 2004/05/15 07:23:45) ; Sun, 7 Nov 2004 14:00:50 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by marty.blilly.com with ESMTP id iA7J0mOv006197(8.12.10/8.12.10/blilly.com submit.mc 1.1 2003/08/26 22:21:33) ; Sun, 7 Nov 2004 14:00:50 -0500 From: Bruce Lilly Reply-To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Organization: Bruce Lilly To: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 23:45:10 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 Cc: ietf-usefor@imc.org References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <418CF1E0.49F1@xyzzy.claranet.de> In-Reply-To: <418CF1E0.49F1@xyzzy.claranet.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200411062345.11066.blilly@erols.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by above.proper.com id iA7J0x6F094880 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Sat November 6 2004 10:46, Frank Ellermann wrote: > > Charles Lindsey wrote: > > > there is no real reason ever to use the RFC 2231 parameter > > splitting in News > > That's also true without the "in News" (at least for URLs). No, URIs can easily be longer than 998 octets. Of course, there's no reason to use such parameters anywhere other than the two specific MIME fields (Content-Type and Content-Disposition) for which they're designed. > Yes, and we'd need Martin Dürst to force some encoded words > into the URL (or for an IRI). The German translation of > "complaint about" would be "Beschwerde über", but I have no > idea how to put "ü" in a mailto-URL within a MIME parameter. If you want to produce a prototype message: To: abuse@example.org Subject: =?iso-8859-1*de?q?Beschwerde_=FCber?= <123@example.org> then a corresponding mailto URI is: mailto:abuse@example.org?Subject=%20%3D%3Fiso-8859-1*de%3Fq%3FBeschwerde_%3DFCber%3F%3D%20%3C123%40example.org%3E Depending on which version of the mailto URI specification and which version of URI syntax you're using, the '@' might be URI encoded as "%40". The above URI in an RFC 2231 parameter with attribute name uri could appear as: ; uri*0="mailto:abuse@example.org?Subject=%20%3D%3Fiso-8859-1*de%3Fq%3FBeschwerde_%3D" ; uri*1=FCber%3F%3D%20%3C123%40example.org%3E Note that it is not necessary to specify a charset or language for the uri parameter since a URI is always in a subset of ANSI X3.4 and is a protocol string not text. If nevertheless one specified an explicit charset, each '%' in at least the first parameter fragment would have to be RFC 2231 encoded (as would ':', '@', '?', and '='): ; uri*0*="ISO-ir-6''mailto%3Aabuse%40example.org%3FSubject%3D%2520%253D%253Fiso-8859" ; uri*1=-1*de%3Fq%3FBeschwerde_%3DFCber%3F%3D%20%3C123%40example.org%3E RFC 2047 encoded-words (as amended by RFC 2231 and errata) are clearly defined, mailto URI and generic URI syntax have some warts but one can construct a safe mailto URI, and constructing RFC 2231 parameters is also possible if one has tools to do so. However, each successive step adds another layer of encoding; RFC 2047 '=' and '?' interact with URI syntax and have to be encoded, and URI '%', ':', '?', and '=' interact with RFC 2231 parameter encoding and have to be encoded. By the time one finishes with all of that, it's barely recognizable. And there's a more serious problem; how is an end user going to make use of this mess? I know of no facilities in UAs for extracting and recombining arbitrary RFC 2231 parameters in arbitrary fields. Some UAs do have capability to follow URIs in message header fields, although it may require some contortions to get some of those UAs to do so. > > I don't want "ranting against". I would want MUST NOT. With no interoperability issues and no network damage issues, RFC 2119 "MUST NOT" is out of the question. > I'd like to know how this is supposed to work, resulting in > MUST NOT if it doesn't work. Otherwise (= Bruce and Martin > can solve the "ü" puzzle, and their solution is identical) > I could live with SHOULD NOT. From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Sun Nov 7 15:53:08 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA23757 for ; Sun, 7 Nov 2004 15:53:07 -0500 (EST) 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 iA7KotRI041147 for ; Sun, 7 Nov 2004 12:50:55 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA7KotHY041146 for ietf-usefor-skb; Sun, 7 Nov 2004 12:50:55 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iA7Kor3S041031 for ; Sun, 7 Nov 2004 12:50:54 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CQtzs-0003G0-00 for ; Sun, 07 Nov 2004 21:50:48 +0100 Received: from 213.191.80.104 ([213.191.80.104]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 07 Nov 2004 21:50:48 +0100 Received: from nobody by 213.191.80.104 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 07 Nov 2004 21:50:48 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2004 21:46:21 +0100 Organization: Lines: 33 Message-ID: <418E899D.6B09@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <418CF1E0.49F1@xyzzy.claranet.de> <200411062345.11066.blilly@erols.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.191.80.104 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bruce Lilly wrote: > URIs can easily be longer than 998 octets. Yes, but they don't contain unencoded white space, therefore the folding rules in RfC 2017 3.1 are good enough. IIRC it was you who posted pointers to all relevant RfCs incl. 2017. > To: abuse@example.org > Subject: =?iso-8859-1*de?q?Beschwerde_=FCber?= <123@example.org> > then a corresponding mailto URI is: > mailto:abuse@example.org?Subject=%20%3D%3Fiso-8859-1*de%3Fq%3FBeschwerde_%3DFCber%3F%3D%20%3C123%40example.org%3E Thanks, so you added the language to the MIME encoded Subject, not to the MIME parameter. And it even works with my good old Mozilla 3 (of course it has no idea what *de should be :-). > Depending on which version of the mailto URI specification > and which version of URI syntax you're using, the '@' might > be URI encoded as "%40". I can see this fascinating thread on the URI list. It gets weird if you try to redirect percent encodigs through PURL: http://purl.net/xyzzy/-AWFID/imperial%2520ton/35%2520in%2520oz > RFC 2119 "MUST NOT" is out of the question. That wasn't meant literally. The real question is mailbox address vs. URL in the possible abuse-reports= parameter of Injection-Info. Let's just offer both and be done with it. Bye, Frank From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Sun Nov 7 16:33:47 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA28616 for ; Sun, 7 Nov 2004 16:33:47 -0500 (EST) 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 iA7LWFve056096 for ; Sun, 7 Nov 2004 13:32:15 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA7LWFcA056095 for ietf-usefor-skb; Sun, 7 Nov 2004 13:32:15 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp04.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp04.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.63]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iA7LWEOu056089 for ; Sun, 7 Nov 2004 13:32:14 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from blilly@erols.com) X-Info: This message was accepted for relay by smtp04.mrf.mail.rcn.net as the sender used SMTP authentication X-Trace: bOTYuWRqPbr6DMQEHXGUjd2s8zQ8qdsYd7yDhMU7jpo= Received: from [12.40.111.107] (port=32792 helo=mail.blilly.com) by smtp04.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.42 #5) id 1CQue2-0003CY-8K; Sun, 07 Nov 2004 16:32:19 -0500 Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.blilly.com with ESMTP id iA7LWDxA005197(8.12.10/8.12.10/mail.blilly.com sendmail.mc.mail 1.18 2004/05/15 07:23:45) ; Sun, 7 Nov 2004 16:32:13 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by marty.blilly.com with ESMTP id iA7LW7DO005194(8.12.10/8.12.10/blilly.com submit.mc 1.1 2003/08/26 22:21:33) ; Sun, 7 Nov 2004 16:32:11 -0500 From: Bruce Lilly Reply-To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Organization: Bruce Lilly To: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2004 16:32:02 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 Cc: ietf-usefor@imc.org References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <200411062345.11066.blilly@erols.com> <418E899D.6B09@xyzzy.claranet.de> In-Reply-To: <418E899D.6B09@xyzzy.claranet.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200411071632.03978.blilly@erols.com> Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Sun November 7 2004 15:46, Frank Ellermann wrote: > > Bruce Lilly wrote: > > > URIs can easily be longer than 998 octets. > > Yes, but they don't contain unencoded white space, therefore > the folding rules in RfC 2017 3.1 are good enough. IIRC it > was you who posted pointers to all relevant RfCs incl. 2017. RFC 2017 [3.1] applies only to a specific parameter in the Content-Type field when used with a specific media type. It's also based on RFC 1738, the relevant parts of which have been superseded by RFC 2396 (which uses different syntax), which may itself be replaced by yet another different syntax specification. Now it might be possible to incorporate the same principles used in RFC 2017, but it won't be as simple as referring to 2017 (because it's not applicable) or copying some text from 2017 (because the underlying URL syntax used by 2017 is obsolete and the current syntax is quite different). From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Sun Nov 7 17:27:40 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA05264 for ; Sun, 7 Nov 2004 17:27:40 -0500 (EST) 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 iA7MQCkQ077760 for ; Sun, 7 Nov 2004 14:26:12 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA7MQC4L077759 for ietf-usefor-skb; Sun, 7 Nov 2004 14:26:12 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iA7MQA94077735 for ; Sun, 7 Nov 2004 14:26:11 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CQvUF-00084l-00 for ; Sun, 07 Nov 2004 23:26:15 +0100 Received: from 213.191.80.104 ([213.191.80.104]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 07 Nov 2004 23:26:15 +0100 Received: from nobody by 213.191.80.104 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 07 Nov 2004 23:26:15 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2004 23:24:51 +0100 Organization: Lines: 24 Message-ID: <418EA0B3.17EE@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <200411062345.11066.blilly@erols.com> <418E899D.6B09@xyzzy.claranet.de> <200411071632.03978.blilly@erols.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.191.80.104 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bruce Lilly wrote: > it might be possible to incorporate the same principles used > in RFC 2017, Good enough, or at least better than the 2231 idea of folding. > because the underlying URL syntax used by 2017 is > obsolete and the current syntax is quite different. Okay, I try it, old: | URL-parameter := <"> URL-word *(*LWSP-char URL-word) <"> | URL-word := token New: | URL-parameter := DQUOTE URL-word *( [FWS] URL-word) DQUOTE | URL-word := 1*( %d33 / %d35-126 ) | ; the concatention of the URL-words yields | ; an URI as defined by [2396bis] We don't need \" here when we have %22, or do we ? Bye, Frank From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Mon Nov 8 12:14:37 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA02848 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 2004 12:14:36 -0500 (EST) 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 iA8HCgYL024269 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 2004 09:12:42 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA8HCgWn024268 for ietf-usefor-skb; Mon, 8 Nov 2004 09:12:42 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp808.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp808.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.198]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id iA8HCfM4024207 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 2004 09:12:41 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-71-252.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.71.252 with poptime) by smtp808.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Nov 2004 17:12:28 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id iA8HCEL20962 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Mon, 8 Nov 2004 17:12:14 GMT To: LIST: ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20276 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <417414F5.6020500@isode.com> <87sm7t6n4e.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <418B72FE.2420@xyzzy.claranet.de> Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 13:59:32 GMT Lines: 28 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <418B72FE.2420@xyzzy.claranet.de> Frank Ellermann writes: >A new Whatever: doesn't exist yet, and as soon as it exists >getting rid of a few malformed Whatever: should be easy. >But IMHO you can't "deprecate" old X-Whatever:, because I'm >free to invent and use X-Whatever: in any form I like. No >X-Whatever: can be "malformed", it's unstructured gibberish. No, you can't forbid it formally, but you can say "The new Whatever header SHOULD be used in place of the previously used, but nowhere documented, X-Whatever header" (which is actually what we currently say in respect of the new Injection-Info and the old NNTP-Posting-Host and X-Trace). That doesn't render the old forms non-compliant, but it provides good ammunition for directing flames and LARTs at sites that haven't changed their ways several years after the new standard was adopted. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Mon Nov 8 12:14:41 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA02869 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 2004 12:14:40 -0500 (EST) 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 iA8HCiIi024300 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 2004 09:12:44 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA8HCiUL024299 for ietf-usefor-skb; Mon, 8 Nov 2004 09:12:44 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp808.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp808.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.198]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id iA8HChV3024229 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 2004 09:12:43 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-71-252.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.71.252 with poptime) by smtp808.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Nov 2004 17:12:30 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id iA8HCF820966 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Mon, 8 Nov 2004 17:12:15 GMT To: LIST: ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20277 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <417414F5.6020500@isode.com> <87sm7t6n4e.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <41877F8C.7000402@isode.com> <4187E75F.1099@xyzzy.claranet.de> <4188C9F0.6020905@isode.com> <4188CAD0.1080902@isode.com> <41895E2E.5C57@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87sm7qwnse.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <418A41B4.7498@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87u0s5oa3c.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <418B6F21.5A5D@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87oeicrzj4.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 14:10:15 GMT Lines: 41 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <87oeicrzj4.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Russ Allbery writes: >Why do you think that? I don't understand why anyone thinks that banning >URLs is going to convince ISPs to provide plain mailbox addresses as abuse >reporting venues when they wanted to use a web form. If I were an ISP >convinced I wanted to use a web form, requiring an address would just mean >that I didn't provide that parameter and instead added some other header >with the URL. If we are agreed that it is a Bad Thing for ISPs to be requiring users to use web forms for abuse complaints (and I think we are, and the consensus on the news.net-abuse.* groups supports us), then the first thing you do is to ensure that the syntax provided in your complaints-header does not afford them that opportunity. That means they are forced to use undocumented X-headers for the purpose, which leaves them wide open to peer pressure, flames and LARTs to make them change their ways. As for the mailto URL scheme, its only benefit seems to be that the ISP can insert a Subject in it to help identify the source of the abuse (which leads to all sorts of strange subjects in strange languages and encodings such as Bruce has shown to us). Far better to encode such information in the local-part of the abuse address, as in Complaints-To: abuse-123456@example.net where "123456" is some logging information meaningful to the ISP inserting it, of even a msg-id (if you can mangle it so as to be a legal local-part). -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Mon Nov 8 12:15:44 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA02940 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 2004 12:15:43 -0500 (EST) 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 iA8HCg36024265 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 2004 09:12:42 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA8HCgBg024259 for ietf-usefor-skb; Mon, 8 Nov 2004 09:12:42 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp808.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp808.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.198]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id iA8HCfOJ024208 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 2004 09:12:41 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-71-252.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.71.252 with poptime) by smtp808.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Nov 2004 17:12:29 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id iA8HCEY20958 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Mon, 8 Nov 2004 17:12:14 GMT To: LIST: ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20275 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: Path Punctuation summary Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <418B7C4F.86C@xyzzy.claranet.de> Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 13:52:26 GMT Lines: 46 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <418B7C4F.86C@xyzzy.claranet.de> Frank Ellermann writes: >Charles Lindsey wrote: >> I think I would prefer Henry's scheme out of that bunch >Yes, it's nice. For a scheme based on s-o-1036 (only "!") >like POSTED and MISMATCH I'd prefer other "keywords": >POSTED => LOCALHOST >MISMATCH => INVALID >But TEST for M would result in messy Path: headers, that >idea probably can't fly. OK, I think you're talking about my Scheme D now. Another possibility I have thought of is that you could use an empty path-identity (i.e. two '!'s together) for the 'M' case, gving: Path: good-site.com!!mallet.com!MISMATCH!dodgy.com!old-site.com! new-site.com!!injector.com!POSTED!not-for-mail So the double "!!" shows that good-site.com and newsite.com assert that they have confirmed the identity of their upstream sites, and the single '!' shows that old-site.com had merely copied the existing path-identity without checking it. By all means propose alternative keywords/notations for MISMATCH and POSTED. I don't like M, MISMATCH, and >POSTED because it's very near to odd cases like host TV. >tv = 65.201.175.144 Eh? Does that domain actually exist? Seems broken to me. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Mon Nov 8 13:00:41 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA07352 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 2004 13:00:40 -0500 (EST) 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 iA8HxVpY044260 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 2004 09:59:31 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA8HxV5M044259 for ietf-usefor-skb; Mon, 8 Nov 2004 09:59:31 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp3.Stanford.EDU (smtp3.Stanford.EDU [171.67.16.138]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iA8HxU6O044244 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 2004 09:59:30 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp3.Stanford.EDU (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id iA8HxWqr010649 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 2004 09:59:33 -0800 Received: (qmail 7829 invoked by uid 1000); 8 Nov 2004 17:59:32 -0000 To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? In-Reply-To: (Charles Lindsey's message of "Mon, 8 Nov 2004 14:10:15 GMT") References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <417414F5.6020500@isode.com> <87sm7t6n4e.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <41877F8C.7000402@isode.com> <4187E75F.1099@xyzzy.claranet.de> <4188C9F0.6020905@isode.com> <4188CAD0.1080902@isode.com> <41895E2E.5C57@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87sm7qwnse.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <418A41B4.7498@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87u0s5oa3c.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <418B6F21.5A5D@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87oeicrzj4.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> From: Russ Allbery Organization: The Eyrie Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2004 09:59:32 -0800 Message-ID: <87r7n4rzln.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) XEmacs/21.4 (Security Through Obscurity, linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Charles Lindsey writes: > If we are agreed that it is a Bad Thing for ISPs to be requiring users > to use web forms for abuse complaints (and I think we are, and the > consensus on the news.net-abuse.* groups supports us), I don't actually agree with this. I just think it's pointless to try to argue it with the people here. > then the first thing you do is to ensure that the syntax provided in > your complaints-header does not afford them that opportunity. This is putting policy that might change into the standard. I think this is a hideously bad idea for all of the reasons that I've previously stated and that have been discussed on the mailing list for the last three or four years, the same reasons that have resulted in splitting the policy document off to USEAGE. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Mon Nov 8 18:44:20 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA19609 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 2004 18:44:20 -0500 (EST) 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 iA8Ne6Zb068759 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 2004 15:40:06 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA8Ne6pV068758 for ietf-usefor-skb; Mon, 8 Nov 2004 15:40:06 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iA8Ne27P068644 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 2004 15:40:03 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CRJ79-0002kH-00 for ; Tue, 09 Nov 2004 00:39:59 +0100 Received: from 212.82.251.165 ([212.82.251.165]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 09 Nov 2004 00:39:59 +0100 Received: from nobody by 212.82.251.165 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 09 Nov 2004 00:39:59 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Path Punctuation summary Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 00:36:28 +0100 Organization: Lines: 43 Message-ID: <419002FC.A44@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <418B7C4F.86C@xyzzy.claranet.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.82.251.165 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by above.proper.com id iA8Ne37P068734 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Charles Lindsey wrote: > Path: good-site.com!!mallet.com!MISMATCH!dodgy.com!old-site.com! > new-site.com!!injector.com!POSTED!not-for-mail That's better than M. > propose alternative keywords/notations for MISMATCH and POSTED. INVALID and LOCALHOST would be reserved, but LOCALHOST was a horrible idea, please forget it. If we could get rid of the POSTED, then replacing MISMATCH by INVALID makes sense. But Henry's idea was better. Your !! is also nice, you could use it instead of Henry's space: | Path: good-site.com,mallet.com dodgy.com!old-site.com! | new-site.com,injector.com@not-for-mail | | Observe that the ' ' delimiter turns up rather conveniently as a separator | between the correct and bogus identities of mallet.com. One would need to | discuss whether FWS as well as SP should delimit this case. Path: good-site.com,mallet.com!!dodgy.com!old-site.com! new-site.com,injector.com@not-for-mail >> tv = 65.201.175.144 > Eh? Does that domain actually exist? Seems broken to me. TV is Tuvalu, a ccTLD, see TV is also host. A TLD POSTED or MISMATCH is unlikely, but not "verboten" like INVALID. With UUCP host names INVALID is probably not much better than MISMATCH. Bye, Frank From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Tue Nov 9 03:57:16 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA02285 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2004 03:57:16 -0500 (EST) 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 iA98rXYX053844 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2004 00:53:33 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA98rXBU053843 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 9 Nov 2004 00:53:33 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from tertius.net.au (onsitelegal.com.au [203.30.75.61]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iA98rWHK053728 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2004 00:53:32 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from thorfinn@tertius.net.au) Received: by tertius.net.au (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 1133D2BF54; Tue, 9 Nov 2004 19:53:21 +1100 (EST) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 19:53:20 +1100 From: Thorfinn To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Message-ID: <20041109085320.GA17207@dora.tertius.net.au> References: <4188C9F0.6020905@isode.com> <4188CAD0.1080902@isode.com> <41895E2E.5C57@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87sm7qwnse.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <418A41B4.7498@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87u0s5oa3c.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <418B6F21.5A5D@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87oeicrzj4.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87r7n4rzln.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87r7n4rzln.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-Religion: debian-Linux FreeBSD slrn mutt vim X-Message-Flag: Outlook is dodgy software. Use anything else instead. Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Mon 08 Nov 2004 at 09:59:32AM -0800, in <87r7n4rzln.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>, Russ Allbery wrote: > Charles Lindsey writes: > > If we are agreed that it is a Bad Thing for ISPs to be requiring users > > to use web forms for abuse complaints (and I think we are, and the > > consensus on the news.net-abuse.* groups supports us), > I don't actually agree with this. I just think it's pointless to try to > argue it with the people here. FWIW, I don't agree with it either. I see a good reason for us to strongly recommend a mailto: in preference to any other sort of URL, but I don't think there's a strong reason to prevent ISPs from putting in a http: url if they want to. Later, Thorf -- thorfinn@tertius.net.au ~/ For those who've come across the seas, ~/ We've boundless plains to share, ~/ ~/ With courage let us all combine, ~/ To Advance Australia Fair. ~/ -- The end of the second verse of the Australian National Anthem. -- From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Tue Nov 9 06:26:34 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA13480 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2004 06:26:33 -0500 (EST) 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 iA9BOhw1058651 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2004 03:24:43 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA9BOhM7058650 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 9 Nov 2004 03:24:43 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp802.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp802.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.139]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id iA9BOffC058580 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2004 03:24:42 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-75-220.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.75.220 with poptime) by smtp802.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 9 Nov 2004 11:24:22 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id iA9BO7F28537 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Tue, 9 Nov 2004 11:24:07 GMT To: LIST: ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20279 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <417414F5.6020500@isode.com> <87sm7t6n4e.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <41877F8C.7000402@isode.com> <4187E75F.1099@xyzzy.claranet.de> <4188C9F0.6020905@isode.com> <4188CAD0.1080902@isode.com> <41895E2E.5C57@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87sm7qwnse.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <418A41B4.7498@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87u0s5oa3c.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <418B6F21.5A5D@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87oeicrzj4.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87r7n4rzln.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 11:00:51 GMT Lines: 53 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <87r7n4rzln.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Russ Allbery writes: >Charles Lindsey writes: >> If we are agreed that it is a Bad Thing for ISPs to be requiring users >> to use web forms for abuse complaints (and I think we are, and the >> consensus on the news.net-abuse.* groups supports us), >I don't actually agree with this. I just think it's pointless to try to >argue it with the people here. With a mail abuse address, you can to a large extent automate the process of sending a LART (e.g. by generating a mail message with the right To: address and with the full headers already pasted into it; so you just have to add some text explaining that this is a spam, or whatever). But every web site interface is different. Each LART has to be constructed by hand by a human, including cutting and pasting a set of full headers into whatever box (usually too small) the web site deigns to provide. Hence the suspicion, frequently voiced, that the ISPs concerned are really trying to discourage you from complaining at all by providing unnecessary hoops using a medium that may not be available to you. >> then the first thing you do is to ensure that the syntax provided in >> your complaints-header does not afford them that opportunity. >This is putting policy that might change into the standard. I think this >is a hideously bad idea for all of the reasons that I've previously stated >and that have been discussed on the mailing list for the last three or >four years, the same reasons that have resulted in splitting the policy >document off to USEAGE. Hideously bad it may be, but I don't think you are going to find consensus on this list for anything else. If the climate changes in the future (which I doubt), then an extension might be possible. That is actually one advantage of putting it in Injection-Info, because you could introduce a new parameter permitting URLs as a later extension. OTOH, providing a Complaints-To header would simply be seen as adopting the current usage of the X-Complaints-To header and, given its widespread usage and almost universally agreed syntax, could hardly be objected to. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Tue Nov 9 12:24:01 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA22093 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2004 12:24:00 -0500 (EST) 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 iA9HL8wO018206 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2004 09:21:08 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA9HL8Bx018205 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 9 Nov 2004 09:21:08 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.61]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iA9HL7OM018165 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2004 09:21:07 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from blilly@erols.com) X-Info: This message was accepted for relay by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net as the sender used SMTP authentication X-Trace: iV84USLOzcdw5kQppcsJF7Ny9v+nDk/lzT4KV5FgaLA= Received: from 65.105.220.34.ptr.us.xo.net ([65.105.220.34] helo=mail.blilly.com) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #7) id 1CRZfz-0000Qd-00; Tue, 09 Nov 2004 12:21:03 -0500 Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.blilly.com with ESMTP id iA9HKTVw006218(8.12.10/8.12.10/mail.blilly.com sendmail.mc.mail 1.18 2004/05/15 07:23:45) ; Tue, 9 Nov 2004 12:20:40 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by marty.blilly.com with ESMTP id iA9HKG1W006217(8.12.10/8.12.10/blilly.com submit.mc 1.1 2003/08/26 22:21:33) ; Tue, 9 Nov 2004 12:20:23 -0500 From: Bruce Lilly Reply-To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Organization: Bruce Lilly To: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 09:17:59 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 Cc: ietf-usefor@imc.org References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <200411071632.03978.blilly@erols.com> <418EA0B3.17EE@xyzzy.claranet.de> In-Reply-To: <418EA0B3.17EE@xyzzy.claranet.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200411090918.00283.blilly@erols.com> Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Sun November 7 2004 17:24, Frank Ellermann wrote: > Okay, I try it, old: > > | URL-parameter := <"> URL-word *(*LWSP-char URL-word) <"> > | URL-word := token > > New: > > | URL-parameter := DQUOTE URL-word *( [FWS] URL-word) DQUOTE > | URL-word := 1*( %d33 / %d35-126 ) > | ; the concatention of the URL-words yields > | ; an URI as defined by [2396bis] > > We don't need \" here when we have %22, or do we ? Bye, Frank One problem is that there are many characters in %d33,%d35-%d126 which were "unsafe" in RFC 1738, "excluded" in RFC 2396, but in RFC 2396bis there is no list of those characters that may not be part or a URI (under any name). Two examples are '<' (%d60) and '>' (%d62), which are prominently used in RFC [2]822 address fields and which therefore are likely to be part of content placed into a mailto URI; moreover, under some mechanisms (e.g. RFC 2369 List- fields) those characters are used to delimit URIs. If we're going to handle general URIs (as we should), we need to be wary of any interaction between particular URI schemes and the ever- changing URI syntax. For example, the mailto URI scheme specification (RFC 2368) requires that "all URL reserved characters in 'to' must be encoded"; whereas '@' was not "reserved" in a URI path component (which is where the RFC 2368 production "to" appears) under RFCs 1738 and 2396, it is unconditionally "reserved" in RFC 2396bis. That implies that '@' (%d64) must be excluded from your "URL-word" grammar if we are considering mailto URIs in isolation; other URI schemes may interact differently with the generic URI syntax changes. Because those changes are still in a state of flux (no RFC obsoleting 2396 has yet been issued), as that proposed changed syntax is not clearly specified (no list of "unsafe" or "excluded" characters), and until there has been some investigation of the effects of the proposed changes on all URI schemes (and preferably after there has been an adequate amount of practical experience with implementations based on the changed syntax), IMO it would be premature to attempt to formulate specific syntax. The simplest and safest course of action for the USEFOR WG would be to wait until the responsible parties for the affected specifications have come to agreement on revised syntax, then adopt that agreed-upon syntax. There is no urgent need to take action at this time; there is no existing standardized "complaints-to" field that needs to be addressed, and premature action is likely to result in incompatibilities which would have to be repaired; past experience has shown that once a specification (or interpretation of an imprecise specification) is ensconced in news software code, it can take a very long time to recover. From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Tue Nov 9 19:04:08 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA00880 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2004 19:04:08 -0500 (EST) 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 iAA00PQG062488 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2004 16:00:25 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAA00PDJ062487 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 9 Nov 2004 16:00:25 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from tertius.net.au (onsitelegal.com.au [203.30.75.61]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAA00NiA062470 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2004 16:00:24 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from thorfinn@tertius.net.au) Received: by tertius.net.au (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 7830C2BEA8; Wed, 10 Nov 2004 11:00:28 +1100 (EST) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 11:00:28 +1100 From: Thorfinn To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Message-ID: <20041110000028.GA25763@dora.tertius.net.au> References: <4188CAD0.1080902@isode.com> <41895E2E.5C57@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87sm7qwnse.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <418A41B4.7498@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87u0s5oa3c.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <418B6F21.5A5D@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87oeicrzj4.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87r7n4rzln.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-Religion: debian-Linux FreeBSD slrn mutt vim X-Message-Flag: Outlook is dodgy software. Use anything else instead. Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Tue 09 Nov 2004 at 11:00:51AM +0000, in , Charles Lindsey wrote: > In <87r7n4rzln.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Russ Allbery writes: [snippage] > >I don't actually agree with this. I just think it's pointless to try to > >argue it with the people here. > With a mail abuse address, you can to a large extent automate the process > of sending a LART (e.g. by generating a mail message with the right To: > address and with the full headers already pasted into it; so you just have > to add some text explaining that this is a spam, or whatever). > But every web site interface is different. Each LART has to be constructed > by hand by a human, including cutting and pasting a set of full headers > into whatever box (usually too small) the web site deigns to provide. Huh? If it's a URL, you (the ISP) just embed a message identifier of some kind into the URL. Complaining about it is as simple as clicking on the URL, and voila, done, complaint registered, no user interaction required. > Hence the suspicion, frequently voiced, that the ISPs concerned are really > trying to discourage you from complaining at all by providing unnecessary > hoops using a medium that may not be available to you. Less hoops. Medium not available, maybe... But I think that's a sufficiently rare occurrence these days (and getting rarer all the time) as to be not worth legislating for. > >This is putting policy that might change into the standard. I think this > >is a hideously bad idea for all of the reasons that I've previously stated > >and that have been discussed on the mailing list for the last three or > >four years, the same reasons that have resulted in splitting the policy > >document off to USEAGE. > Hideously bad it may be, but I don't think you are going to find > consensus on this list for anything else. Well, I'm speaking up as being against consensus in that direction (restricting solely to email address). > If the climate changes in the future (which I doubt), then an > extension might be possible. That is actually one advantage of putting > it in Injection-Info, because you could introduce a new parameter > permitting URLs as a later extension. > OTOH, providing a Complaints-To header would simply be seen as adopting the > current usage of the X-Complaints-To header and, given its widespread > usage and almost universally agreed syntax, could hardly be objected to. Now, that is, perhaps, a fair point, that it's easier to get people to accept just taking the X- off. I still think that getting them to take the X- off and putting mailto: on the front is not a particularly difficult task. And reader agents are free to just ignore anything that isn't a mailto:... I don't think we're putting any requirement on them to necessarily do anything *with* a Complaints-To: header, are we? Later, Thorf -- thorfinn@tertius.net.au ~/ For those who've come across the seas, ~/ We've boundless plains to share, ~/ ~/ With courage let us all combine, ~/ To Advance Australia Fair. ~/ -- The end of the second verse of the Australian National Anthem. -- From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Tue Nov 9 19:37:05 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA03052 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2004 19:37:04 -0500 (EST) 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 iAA0ZDC1077768 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2004 16:35:13 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAA0ZDdI077767 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 9 Nov 2004 16:35:13 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp3.Stanford.EDU (smtp3.Stanford.EDU [171.67.16.138]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAA0ZDZj077760 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2004 16:35:13 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp3.Stanford.EDU (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id iAA0ZIcJ009078 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2004 16:35:18 -0800 Received: (qmail 21660 invoked by uid 1000); 10 Nov 2004 00:35:17 -0000 To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? In-Reply-To: <20041110000028.GA25763@dora.tertius.net.au> (thorfinn@tertius.net.au's message of "Wed, 10 Nov 2004 11:00:28 +1100") References: <4188CAD0.1080902@isode.com> <41895E2E.5C57@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87sm7qwnse.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <418A41B4.7498@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87u0s5oa3c.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <418B6F21.5A5D@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87oeicrzj4.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87r7n4rzln.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <20041110000028.GA25763@dora.tertius.net.au> From: Russ Allbery Organization: The Eyrie Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 16:35:17 -0800 Message-ID: <87bre6r16i.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) XEmacs/21.4 (Security Through Obscurity, linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Thorfinn writes: > Now, that is, perhaps, a fair point, that it's easier to get people to > accept just taking the X- off. I still think that getting them to take > the X- off and putting mailto: on the front is not a particularly > difficult task. I can speak for INN's implementation in saying that removing the X- and removing the X- plus adding mailto: are both equivalently difficult (and are both trivial). Implementing Injector-Info is harder, although not that hard. (Parsing Injector-Info is completely insane, but well, we knew that going in.) -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Mon Nov 15 12:15:07 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA11643 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 12:15:06 -0500 (EST) 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 iAFHCkvZ047408 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 09:12:46 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAFHCkP0047407 for ietf-usefor-skb; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 09:12:46 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp812.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp812.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.202]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id iAFHCjCv047321 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 09:12:45 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-77-228.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.77.228 with poptime) by smtp812.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 15 Nov 2004 17:12:32 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id iAFCG9O15899 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 12:16:09 GMT To: LIST: ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20285 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <87oeicrzj4.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87r7n4rzln.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <9KhLNobXw-B@khms.westfalen.de> Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 11:27:01 GMT Lines: 34 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <9KhLNobXw-B@khms.westfalen.de> kaih@khms.westfalen.de (Kai Henningsen) writes: >chl@clerew.man.ac.uk (Charles Lindsey) wrote on 09.11.04 in : >> Hideously bad it may be, but I don't think you are going to find >> consensus on this list for anything else. >There'll be no consensus for no-urls either. Well I think all our arguments have been well rehearsed by now, so please coud our CHair count heads and announce a decision. Essentially, there are two issues to decide, more or less orthogonal: 1. Should the complaints address be given as an email address or as a URL (with a side issue of whether any such URL be restricted to 'mailto' only)? 2. Should whatever is done be done in the context os a Complaints-To header, or in the context of an extra parameter to Injection-Info? If anyone thinks they are not orthogonal (i.e. would vote differently on one of them according to the result of the other, then please speak up). -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Mon Nov 15 13:17:14 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA16773 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 13:17:13 -0500 (EST) 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 iAFIFtum064836 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 10:15:55 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAFIFt3k064835 for ietf-usefor-skb; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 10:15:55 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAFIFpim064827 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 10:15:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CTlOE-0004Md-00 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 19:15:46 +0100 Received: from c-134-93-1.hh.dial.de.ignite.net ([62.134.93.1]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 19:15:46 +0100 Received: from nobody by c-134-93-1.hh.dial.de.ignite.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 19:15:46 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 19:14:40 +0100 Organization: Lines: 13 Message-ID: <4198F210.1049@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <87oeicrzj4.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87r7n4rzln.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <9KhLNobXw-B@khms.westfalen.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: c-134-93-1.hh.dial.de.ignite.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Charles Lindsey wrote: > If anyone thinks they are not orthogonal (i.e. would vote > differently on one of them according to the result of the > other, then please speak up). With "2" (Injection-Info) it's possible to have both options. I'd say "no" to URLs unless there's an explicit folding rule derived from 2017. A simple mailbox address should be okay, independent of any URL option. Restricting URLs to mailto: is a bad idea. Bye, Frank (Complaints-To: ;-) From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Tue Nov 16 07:02:16 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA20108 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 07:02:15 -0500 (EST) 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 iAGC0JQN083093 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 04:00:19 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAGC0Jg8083092 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 04:00:19 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp806.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp806.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.196]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id iAGC0IZr082969 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 04:00:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-73-129.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.73.129 with poptime) by smtp806.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 16 Nov 2004 11:59:58 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id iAGBxhY27892 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 11:59:43 GMT To: LIST: ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20288 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: ***SPAM-3*** Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <87oeicrzj4.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87r7n4rzln.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <9KhLNobXw-B@khms.westfalen.de> <4198F210.1049@xyzzy.claranet.de> Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 11:34:18 GMT Lines: 41 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <4198F210.1049@xyzzy.claranet.de> Frank Ellermann writes: >Charles Lindsey wrote: > >> If anyone thinks they are not orthogonal (i.e. would vote >> differently on one of them according to the result of the >> other, then please speak up). >With "2" (Injection-Info) it's possible to have both options. >I'd say "no" to URLs unless there's an explicit folding rule >derived from 2017. A simple mailbox address should be okay, >independent of any URL option. Restricting URLs to mailto: >is a bad idea. OK, so I think you are suggesting the following possibilities: 1. Use Injection-Info with parameter mail-complaints-to=
(leaving the possibility open for a separate URL extension later). 2. Use Injection-Info with parameter mail-complaints-to=
AND with a separate complaints-url= (with explicit permission to fold it by inserting FWS/CFWS at any point, cf RFC 2017 ???). 3. Use Complaints-To with
only 4. Use complaints to with
OR (I think these can be distinguished syntactically fairly easily). Explicit permission to fold the URL as above. Any other options anyone wants? -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Tue Nov 16 07:02:17 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA20111 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 07:02:16 -0500 (EST) 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 iAGC0Gv7083049 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 04:00:16 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAGC0G2c083046 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 04:00:16 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp806.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp806.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.196]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id iAGC0F8N082656 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 04:00:15 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-73-129.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.73.129 with poptime) by smtp806.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 16 Nov 2004 11:59:59 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id iAGBxg527888 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 11:59:42 GMT To: LIST: ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20287 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: draft-ietf-usefor-usepro-01.txt Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 11:21:57 GMT Lines: 187 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: There was some discussion regarding this a month back. I am now preparing draft-usepro-02. Here are some of the new bits of text related to the discussions we had. Much of what you see here is pieces of existing text that were expected to migrate to USEFOR, but in the event have come back here. All that is new in the Control Messages section is a pointer to the Duties of a Relaying Agent for handling non-existent newsgroups, the removal of a sentence which Russ did not like (and which will reappear in some form in USEAGE), and the obsoleting of the "cmsg" hack. 6. Control Messages The following sections document the control messages. "Message" is used herein as a synonym for "article" unless context indicates otherwise. The Newsgroups-header of each control message SHOULD include the newsgroup-name(s) for the group(s) affected (i.e. groups to be created, modified or removed, or containing articles to be canceled). This is to ensure that the message propagates to all sites which receive (or would receive) that group(s). It MAY include other newsgroup-names so as to improve propagation (but this practice may cause the control message to propagate also to places where it is unwanted, or even cause it not to propagate where it should, so it should not be used without good reason). NOTE: Propagation is controlled by relaying agents, and it may be necessary for relaying agents to take special steps to ensure that control messages such as newgroup messages for not-yet- existent newsgroups are propagated correctly (see 7.3). [The first of those paragraphs was originally scheduled to be moved to USEFOR (and it may yet be so moved). It has been reinstated here (at least temporarily) to make sure that it does not get overlooked.] The presence of a Subject-content starting with the string "cmsg " and followed by a was construed under [RFC 1036] as a request to perform that control action (even if no genuine Control header was present). Indeed, some implementations went further and added the implied Control header before injecting. Likewise, the presence of a newsgroup-name ending in ".ctl" in the Newsgroups header caused the Subject header content (not starting with "cmsg" in this case) to be interpreted as a . All these practices are now declared to be Obsolete, and Subject headers MUST NOT now be interpreted as s under any circumstances. The descriptions below set out REQUIREMENTS to be followed by sites that receive control messages and choose to honour them. However, nothing in these descriptions should be taken as overriding the right of any such site, in accordance with its local policy, to refuse to honour any particular control message, or to refer it to an administrator for approval (either as a class or on a case-by-case basis). In the following sections, each type of control message is defined syntactically by defining its verb, its arguments, and possibly its body. 6.1. Digital Signature of Headers It is most desirable that group control messages (6.2) in particular be authenticated by incorporating them within some digital signature scheme that encompasses other headers closely associated with them (including at least the Approved-, Message-ID- and Date-headers). At the time of writing, this is usually done by means of a protocol known as "PGPverify" ([PGPVERIFY]), and continued usage of this is encouraged at least as an interim measure. However, PGPverify is not considered suitable for standardization in its present form, for various technical reasons. It is therefore expected that an early extension to this standard will provide a robust and general purpose digital authentication mechanism with applicability to all situations requiring protection against malicious use of, or interference with, headers. That extension would also address other Netnews security issues. 7.3. Duties of a Relaying Agent A Relaying Agent accepts injected articles from injecting and other relaying agents and passes them on to relaying or serving agents according to mutually agreed policy. Relaying agents SHOULD accept articles ONLY from trusted agents. An article SHOULD NOT be relayed unless the sending agent has been configured to supply and the receiving agent to receive at least one of the newsgroup-names in its Newsgroups-header and at least one of the distributions in its Distribution-header, if any. Exceptionally, ALL relaying agents are deemed willing to supply or accept the distribution "world", and NO relaying agent should supply or accept the distribution "local". However, if the particular implementation does not relay non-existent newsgroups, even when included in the Newsgroups-header and implied (e.g. by some "wild card" notation) in the configuration tables, then the agent MUST examine all group control messages (6.2) in order to ensure that relaying of those messages proceeds normally. ............ In order to avoid unnecessary relaying, an article SHOULD NOT be relayed if the path-identity of the receiving agent (or some known alias thereof) appears in its Path-header. [Removed mention of similar checks at the receiving end, which apparently are seldom done.] A relaying agent processes articles as follows: ............ 3. It SHOULD reject any article that does not include all the mandatory headers (section a-5). 4. It MAY reject any article whose headers do not have legal contents. ............ 7.4. Duties of a Serving Agent ............ A serving agent MAY decline to accept an article if the Path-content contains some path-identity whose articles the serving agent does not want, as a matter of local policy. NOTE: This last facility is sometimes used to detect and decline control messages (notably cancel messages) which have been deliberately seeded with a path-identity to be "aliased out" by sites not wishing to act upon them. [INN at least does this. It might be argued that it is not necessary to mention it here.] A serving agent processes articles as follows: ............ 3. It MUST reject any article that does not include all the mandatory headers (section a-5), or which contains any header that does not have legal contents. [That is mentioned here mainly for comparison with the altered wording under Relaying Agents.] ............ 7.7. Duties of a Reading Agent A reading agent downloads articles from a serving agent, as directed by the reader, and displays them (or processes them in some other manner), subject to any limitations of the reading agent, such as availability of charsets, and having first decoded any Content- Transfer-Encodings, encoded-words, etc. It SHOULD also have the capability to show the raw article exactly as received. [That wording has been toned down, as requested by John Stanley.] It MAY present lists of articles available for display, and MAY structure those lists so as to show the relationships between the articles, as determined by the References-, Subject-, Date- and other-headers (see [USEAGE] for some usual methods of doing this). [A sentence regarding rejection of articles with unwanted distributions has been removed, and will reappear in USEAGE.] [This whole section may yet get omitted] On top of the changes noted above, I am working on some further changes, mainly in the form of texts that were expected to appear in USEFOR, but will now appear in USEPRO following discussions with our Chair. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Tue Nov 16 17:49:27 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA04896 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 17:49:26 -0500 (EST) 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 iAGMlL03066161 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 14:47:21 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAGMlL6h066160 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 14:47:21 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAGMlIaO066054 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 14:47:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CUC6U-0006lJ-00 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 23:47:14 +0100 Received: from 212.82.251.37 ([212.82.251.37]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 23:47:14 +0100 Received: from nobody by 212.82.251.37 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 23:47:14 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 23:45:48 +0100 Organization: Lines: 17 Message-ID: <419A831C.461D@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <87oeicrzj4.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87r7n4rzln.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <9KhLNobXw-B@khms.westfalen.de> <4198F210.1049@xyzzy.claranet.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.82.251.37 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Charles Lindsey wrote: Only one minor point: > complaints-url= (with explicit permission to fold > it by inserting FWS/CFWS at any point, cf RFC 2017 ???). Not CFWS, only FWS. Bruce found IMHO no serious problem in the proposed syntax, the details of RfC 2396bis like reserved char.s are irrelevant for your draft and Usenet. (Let the IESG and W3C fight it out if something in 2396bis doesn't work with mailto:, IRIs, zone IDs, or whatever ;-) BTW, I asked the author of 2821 about the weird host TV, it's intentionally at least one dot in SMTP domains, Bye. From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Thu Nov 18 12:09:18 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA12306 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 2004 12:09:18 -0500 (EST) 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 iAIH6mR5044685 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 2004 09:06:48 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAIH6mRN044684 for ietf-usefor-skb; Thu, 18 Nov 2004 09:06:48 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAIH6lf9044669 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 2004 09:06:48 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from alexey.melnikov-usefor@isode.com) Received: from [172.16.0.116] (shiny.isode.com [62.3.217.250]) by rufus.isode.com via TCP (internal) with ESMTPA; Thu, 18 Nov 2004 17:06:46 +0000 Message-ID: <419CD6A4.6010402@isode.com> Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 17:06:44 +0000 From: Alexey Melnikov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Charles Lindsey CC: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <87oeicrzj4.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87r7n4rzln.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <9KhLNobXw-B@khms.westfalen.de> <4198F210.1049@xyzzy.claranet.de> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Charles Lindsey wrote: >In <4198F210.1049@xyzzy.claranet.de> Frank Ellermann writes: > > >>Charles Lindsey wrote: >> >> >>>If anyone thinks they are not orthogonal (i.e. would vote >>>differently on one of them according to the result of the >>>other, then please speak up). >>> >>> >>With "2" (Injection-Info) it's possible to have both options. >>I'd say "no" to URLs unless there's an explicit folding rule >>derived from 2017. A simple mailbox address should be okay, >>independent of any URL option. Restricting URLs to mailto: >>is a bad idea. >> > >OK, so I think you are suggesting the following possibilities: > >1. Use Injection-Info with parameter mail-complaints-to=
> (leaving the possibility open for a separate URL extension later). > >2. Use Injection-Info with parameter mail-complaints-to=
AND with > a separate complaints-url= (with explicit permission to fold it by > inserting FWS/CFWS at any point, cf RFC 2017 ???). > > (FWS, as noticed by Frank.) I would prefer #2, followed by #1 and #3. As a chair I would note that I see no consensus to use mail-complaint-to over complaints-url. As a WG participant I would be Ok with saying that the "mail-complaint-to" SHOULD be present. >3. Use Complaints-To with
only > >4. Use complaints to with
OR (I think these can be > distinguished syntactically fairly easily). Explicit permission to fold > the URL as above. > > I don't think # 4 is a good architectural choice. >Any other options anyone wants? > > From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Fri Nov 19 11:02:43 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA15304 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 2004 11:02:43 -0500 (EST) 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 iAJG0Mip007496 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 2004 08:00:22 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAJG0MQX007491 for ietf-usefor-skb; Fri, 19 Nov 2004 08:00:22 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.61]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAJG0Cm1007420 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 2004 08:00:17 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from blilly@erols.com) X-Info: This message was accepted for relay by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net as the sender used SMTP authentication X-Trace: u/8ZQQoIFPwvSzPApSjMqbLELoFgckqUCmhf4d5aStg= Received: from 65.105.220.34.ptr.us.xo.net ([65.105.220.34] helo=mail.blilly.com) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #7) id 1CVBBE-0002jM-00; Fri, 19 Nov 2004 11:00:12 -0500 Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.blilly.com with ESMTP id iAJG0AYP021752(8.12.10/8.12.10/mail.blilly.com sendmail.mc.mail 1.18 2004/05/15 07:23:45) ; Fri, 19 Nov 2004 11:00:10 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by marty.blilly.com with ESMTP id iAJG099h021751(8.12.10/8.12.10/blilly.com submit.mc 1.1 2003/08/26 22:21:33) ; Fri, 19 Nov 2004 11:00:10 -0500 From: Bruce Lilly Reply-To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Organization: Bruce Lilly To: Charles Lindsey Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 08:57:50 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 Cc: ietf-usefor@imc.org References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <87u0s5oa3c.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200411190857.50669.blilly@erols.com> Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Fri November 5 2004 12:36, Charles Lindsey wrote: > Actually, there is no real reason ever to use the RFC 2231 parameter > splitting in News Wrong. We have agreed that MIME is to be used, it is obvious that mail<->news gateways exist, and RFC 2231 is part of the MIME specification. From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Fri Nov 19 11:02:47 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA15342 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 2004 11:02:47 -0500 (EST) 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 iAJG0MDQ007494 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 2004 08:00:22 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAJG0LSO007492 for ietf-usefor-skb; Fri, 19 Nov 2004 08:00:21 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.61]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAJG0D98007430 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 2004 08:00:17 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from blilly@erols.com) X-Info: This message was accepted for relay by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net as the sender used SMTP authentication X-Trace: u/8ZQQoIFPxJYlGrwhgRMOHvdOMNN2DZfqGYGFAyhRg= Received: from 65.105.220.34.ptr.us.xo.net ([65.105.220.34] helo=mail.blilly.com) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #7) id 1CVBBH-0002jz-00; Fri, 19 Nov 2004 11:00:15 -0500 Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.blilly.com with ESMTP id iAJG0AYT021752(8.12.10/8.12.10/mail.blilly.com sendmail.mc.mail 1.18 2004/05/15 07:23:45) ; Fri, 19 Nov 2004 11:00:14 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by marty.blilly.com with ESMTP id iAJG099j021751(8.12.10/8.12.10/blilly.com submit.mc 1.1 2003/08/26 22:21:33) ; Fri, 19 Nov 2004 11:00:14 -0500 From: Bruce Lilly Reply-To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Organization: Bruce Lilly To: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 10:51:56 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 Cc: ietf-usefor@imc.org References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <9KhLNobXw-B@khms.westfalen.de> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200411191051.57185.blilly@erols.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Mon November 15 2004 06:27, Charles Lindsey wrote: > If anyone thinks they are not orthogonal (i.e. would vote differently on > one of them according to the result of the other, then please speak up). They are not orthogonal (I might very well vote differently on any one issue based on outcome of any of the others, if there were separate independent votes). There are really six distinct options involved in the three issues listed, as well as other options that should be considered. And before we get as far as an actual vote, we ought to set some ground rules: there are many different voting systems, each having distinct characteristics (e.g. http://condorcet.org/emr/methods.shtml ), we need to agree on what options are to be voted on (should include *all* viable options), on wording of the options (which should be fair and representative), when voting will commence and end, mechanics of the voting procedure, how results will be used, etc. For that matter, we ought to revisit the issue of whether voting is an appropriate means for the Chair to assess consensus. From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Fri Nov 19 11:12:29 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA16436 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 2004 11:12:28 -0500 (EST) 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 iAJGBE92010752 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 2004 08:11:14 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAJGBE3X010751 for ietf-usefor-skb; Fri, 19 Nov 2004 08:11:14 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mail.verisignlabs.com (cliffie.verisignlabs.com [65.201.175.9]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAJGBDq5010736 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 2004 08:11:13 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from sah@428cobrajet.net) Received: from dul1shollenbl1 ([::ffff:216.168.239.87]) (AUTH: LOGIN shollenb, SSL: TLSv1/SSLv3,128bits,RC4-MD5) by mail.verisignlabs.com with esmtp; Fri, 19 Nov 2004 11:11:06 -0500 id 005442EC.419E1B1A.00005A7D From: "Scott Hollenbeck" To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: RE: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 11:11:16 -0500 Message-ID: <7468147AEE316B41B3B55152959CE218129253@dul1wnexm05.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 In-Reply-To: <200411191051.57185.blilly@erols.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > And before we get as far as an actual vote, we ought to set > some ground rules: there are many different voting systems, > each having distinct characteristics (e.g. > http://condorcet.org/emr/methods.shtml > ), we need to agree on what options are to be voted on (should > include *all* viable options), on wording of the options (which > should be fair and representative), when voting will commence > and end, mechanics of the voting procedure, how results will > be used, etc. For that matter, we ought to revisit the issue of > whether voting is an appropriate means for the Chair to assess > consensus. Confirming the last sentence: the IETF does not use voting to determine consensus. OK, OK, I know that we *do* use hums and straw polls, which may be considered a form of voting, to help determine consensus. See section 3.3 of RFC 2418 for guidelines describing what should be done to determine consensus. RFC 3929 may also be helpful for issues that are particularly contentious. -Scott- (speaking as area advisor) From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Fri Nov 19 11:49:00 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA15305 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 2004 11:02:43 -0500 (EST) 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 iAJG0Mmq007495 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 2004 08:00:22 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAJG0Lpd007493 for ietf-usefor-skb; Fri, 19 Nov 2004 08:00:22 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.61]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAJG0C0M007429 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 2004 08:00:17 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from blilly@erols.com) X-Info: This message was accepted for relay by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net as the sender used SMTP authentication X-Trace: u/8ZQQoIFPwb02ZKDS1EdyBaMfeWjh9dBYVnmGN5+1M= Received: from 65.105.220.34.ptr.us.xo.net ([65.105.220.34] helo=mail.blilly.com) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #7) id 1CVBBG-0002jd-00; Fri, 19 Nov 2004 11:00:14 -0500 Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.blilly.com with ESMTP id iAJG0AYR021752(8.12.10/8.12.10/mail.blilly.com sendmail.mc.mail 1.18 2004/05/15 07:23:45) ; Fri, 19 Nov 2004 11:00:12 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by marty.blilly.com with ESMTP id iAJG099i021751(8.12.10/8.12.10/blilly.com submit.mc 1.1 2003/08/26 22:21:33) ; Fri, 19 Nov 2004 11:00:12 -0500 From: Bruce Lilly Reply-To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Organization: Bruce Lilly To: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: ***SPAM-3*** Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 09:23:17 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 Cc: ietf-usefor@imc.org References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <4198F210.1049@xyzzy.claranet.de> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200411190923.17497.blilly@erols.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tue November 16 2004 06:34, Charles Lindsey wrote: > OK, so I think you are suggesting the following possibilities: > > 1. Use Injection-Info with parameter mail-complaints-to=
> (leaving the possibility open for a separate URL extension later). > > 2. Use Injection-Info with parameter mail-complaints-to=
AND with > a separate complaints-url= (with explicit permission to fold it by > inserting FWS/CFWS at any point, cf RFC 2017 ???). > > 3. Use Complaints-To with
only > > 4. Use complaints to with
OR (I think these can be > distinguished syntactically fairly easily). You are wrong; the syntax is very close and may pose problems for some types of parsers. If you really thought the syntax was easily distinguishable, then you would have proposed a single parameter rather than two parameters in #2. > Explicit permission to fold > the URL as above. RFC 2017 applies only to parameters in a Content-Type field; is is inapplicable to any other field. > Any other options anyone wants? 5. A separate field (complaints-to perhaps, but the tag name is a separate issue) specifying a URI. Handling of long URIs to be determined. 6. Table the matter and continue with more pressing business. Reconsider the matter when we have produced the two Standards Track RFCs that were supposed to have been produced a year ago. 7. Defer the matter to a general (not news-specific) header field. From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Fri Nov 19 22:15:26 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA23447 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 2004 22:15:26 -0500 (EST) 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 iAK3CgKI032571 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 2004 19:12:42 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAK3Cgda032561 for ietf-usefor-skb; Fri, 19 Nov 2004 19:12:42 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp802.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp802.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.139]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id iAK3Ceap032513 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 2004 19:12:41 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-65-216.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.65.216 with poptime) by smtp802.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 20 Nov 2004 03:12:26 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id iAJHCBE27396 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Fri, 19 Nov 2004 17:12:11 GMT To: LIST: ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20291 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Is this a STraw Poll? (was Standardize Complaints-To as deployed) Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <87oeicrzj4.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87r7n4rzln.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <9KhLNobXw-B@khms.westfalen.de> <4198F210.1049@xyzzy.claranet.de> <419CD6A4.6010402@isode.com> Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 14:49:50 GMT Lines: 60 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <419CD6A4.6010402@isode.com> Alexey Melnikov writes: >Charles Lindsey wrote: >>OK, so I think you are suggesting the following possibilities: Alexey has given his preference order as #2, #1, #3, #4. Does this mean we are all supposed to express out preference order now? If so, then my order is #3, #1, (|), #2, #4 The "(|)" in the middle is my consenus limit (i.e. I could live with anything to the left of it, but would be most unhappy with anything to the right). >> >>1. Use Injection-Info with parameter mail-complaints-to=
>> (leaving the possibility open for a separate URL extension later). >> >>2. Use Injection-Info with parameter mail-complaints-to=
AND with >> a separate complaints-url= (with explicit permission to fold it by >> inserting FWS/CFWS at any point, cf RFC 2017 ???). >> >> >(FWS, as noticed by Frank.) agreed. >I would prefer #2, followed by #1 and #3. >As a chair I would note that I see no consensus to use mail-complaint-to >over complaints-url. Nor does there seem to be any consensus for the opposite. >As a WG participant I would be Ok with saying that the >"mail-complaint-to" SHOULD be present. Ah! You mean that those who want to give a (non-mailto) URL SHOULD give a mail-address as well. Yes, I could live with that >>3. Use Complaints-To with
only >> >>4. Use complaints to with
OR (I think these can be >> distinguished syntactically fairly easily). Explicit permission to fold >> the URL as above. >> >> >I don't think # 4 is a good architectural choice. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Sat Nov 20 01:40:53 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA08990 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 2004 01:40:52 -0500 (EST) 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 iAK6cpxY015044 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 2004 22:38:51 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAK6cpsW015043 for ietf-usefor-skb; Fri, 19 Nov 2004 22:38:51 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAK6clxD014975 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 2004 22:38:48 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CVOta-0005Ri-00 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 2004 07:38:54 +0100 Received: from du-001-137.access.de.clara.net ([212.82.227.137]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 2004 07:38:54 +0100 Received: from nobody by du-001-137.access.de.clara.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 2004 07:38:54 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Is this a STraw Poll? Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 07:37:33 +0100 Organization: Lines: 21 Message-ID: <419EE62D.14B1@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <87oeicrzj4.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87r7n4rzln.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <9KhLNobXw-B@khms.westfalen.de> <4198F210.1049@xyzzy.claranet.de> <419CD6A4.6010402@isode.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: du-001-137.access.de.clara.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Charles Lindsey wrote: > my order is #3, #1, (|), #2, #4 [Alexey wrote] >> I would prefer #2, followed by #1 and #3. [...] >> "mail-complaint-to" SHOULD be present. My preference is the same incl. this SHOULD and FWS folding. Without FWS folding (= only 2231) it's #1 before #3. I've seen Bruce's #5, #6, #7, but I don't like these ideas. While Bruce and Scott discuss RfC 2418 I've another off topic question: My normal reaction to a poll is to send a private mail, and then wait for the published result. Is that how it's supposed to work ? With the IETF I never know, all this "humming" in conjunction with RfC 3710 chapter 4.3 sounds like "scientology" for me. Bye, Frank From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Sat Nov 20 14:03:59 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA18192 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 2004 14:03:59 -0500 (EST) 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 iAKJ1qTL068251 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 2004 11:01:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAKJ1qUw068250 for ietf-usefor-skb; Sat, 20 Nov 2004 11:01:52 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp04.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp04.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.63]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAKJ1mn4068219 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 2004 11:01:48 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from blilly@erols.com) X-Info: This message was accepted for relay by smtp04.mrf.mail.rcn.net as the sender used SMTP authentication X-Trace: hUHp/fdkah7be6/xmD3vfnb/S3+Y4osI489kegEgJag= Received: from wireless-12-40-111-107.bryantpark.org ([12.40.111.107] helo=mail.blilly.com) by smtp04.mrf.mail.rcn.net with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #7) id 1CVaUY-0001JG-00; Sat, 20 Nov 2004 14:01:50 -0500 Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.blilly.com with ESMTP id iAKJ1ecL005183(8.12.10/8.12.10/mail.blilly.com sendmail.mc.mail 1.18 2004/05/15 07:23:45) ; Sat, 20 Nov 2004 14:01:47 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by marty.blilly.com with ESMTP id iAKJ1YF8005181(8.12.10/8.12.10/blilly.com submit.mc 1.1 2003/08/26 22:21:33) ; Sat, 20 Nov 2004 14:01:46 -0500 From: Bruce Lilly Reply-To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Organization: Bruce Lilly To: "Scott Hollenbeck" Subject: RE: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 11:26:22 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 Cc: ietf-usefor@imc.org References: <7468147AEE316B41B3B55152959CE218129253@dul1wnexm05.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> In-Reply-To: <7468147AEE316B41B3B55152959CE218129253@dul1wnexm05.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200411201126.22545.blilly@erols.com> Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Fri November 19 2004 11:11, Scott Hollenbeck wrote: > Confirming the last sentence: the IETF does not use voting to determine > consensus. > > OK, OK, I know that we *do* use hums and straw polls, which may be > considered a form of voting, to help determine consensus. See section 3.3 > of RFC 2418 for guidelines describing what should be done to determine > consensus. RFC 3929 may also be helpful for issues that are particularly > contentious. > > -Scott- > (speaking as area advisor) Just to avoid misinterpretation of my remarks as criticism of the Chair, I'd like to clarify two points: 1. Although there was some concern about an early "60%" criterion, the Chair has since affirmed that voting is not intended to be used to determine consensus 2. The Chair did not initiate discussion of a "vote" or a euphemism for a vote (e.g. "count heads") in this matter. Regarding "straw polls", my remarks about voting still largely apply; we need to agree on methods, ensure that *all* points of view are represented *fairly*, etc. From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Sat Nov 20 14:49:19 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA18190 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 2004 14:03:58 -0500 (EST) 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 iAKJ1sjK068281 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 2004 11:01:54 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAKJ1sDF068270 for ietf-usefor-skb; Sat, 20 Nov 2004 11:01:54 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp04.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp04.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.63]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAKJ1reC068263 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 2004 11:01:54 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from blilly@erols.com) X-Info: This message was accepted for relay by smtp04.mrf.mail.rcn.net as the sender used SMTP authentication X-Trace: hUHp/fdkah458W79iblXe2CBeWyQEG/cVQTqX25TGzU= Received: from wireless-12-40-111-107.bryantpark.org ([12.40.111.107] helo=mail.blilly.com) by smtp04.mrf.mail.rcn.net with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #7) id 1CVaUe-0001Jw-00; Sat, 20 Nov 2004 14:01:57 -0500 Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.blilly.com with ESMTP id iAKJ1ecN005183(8.12.10/8.12.10/mail.blilly.com sendmail.mc.mail 1.18 2004/05/15 07:23:45) ; Sat, 20 Nov 2004 14:01:53 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by marty.blilly.com with ESMTP id iAKJ1YF9005181(8.12.10/8.12.10/blilly.com submit.mc 1.1 2003/08/26 22:21:33) ; Sat, 20 Nov 2004 14:01:52 -0500 From: Bruce Lilly Reply-To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Organization: Bruce Lilly To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: ***SPAM-3*** Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 11:44:22 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 Cc: "Charles Lindsey" References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <200411190923.17497.blilly@erols.com> In-Reply-To: <200411190923.17497.blilly@erols.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200411201144.22926.blilly@erols.com> Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Fri November 19 2004 09:23, Bruce Lilly wrote: > > On Tue November 16 2004 06:34, Charles Lindsey wrote: > > Any other options anyone wants? 8. A separate field whose field body specifies a list of URIs (so that multiple supported alternative methods of reporting abuse can be specified), perhaps something like the (incompletely- specified) List- fields of RFC 2369. From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Sat Nov 20 14:49:21 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA18191 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 2004 14:03:58 -0500 (EST) 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 iAKJ1vEf068309 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 2004 11:01:57 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAKJ1ubU068308 for ietf-usefor-skb; Sat, 20 Nov 2004 11:01:56 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp04.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp04.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.63]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAKJ1uUQ068301 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 2004 11:01:56 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from blilly@erols.com) X-Info: This message was accepted for relay by smtp04.mrf.mail.rcn.net as the sender used SMTP authentication X-Trace: hUHp/fdkah7wIZrG4UQdeu+T4JbFIjL37fauHnwS8WM= Received: from wireless-12-40-111-107.bryantpark.org ([12.40.111.107] helo=mail.blilly.com) by smtp04.mrf.mail.rcn.net with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #7) id 1CVaUh-0001IU-00; Sat, 20 Nov 2004 14:01:59 -0500 Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.blilly.com with ESMTP id iAKJ1ecJ005183(8.12.10/8.12.10/mail.blilly.com sendmail.mc.mail 1.18 2004/05/15 07:23:45) ; Sat, 20 Nov 2004 14:01:42 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by marty.blilly.com with ESMTP id iAKJ1YF7005181(8.12.10/8.12.10/blilly.com submit.mc 1.1 2003/08/26 22:21:33) ; Sat, 20 Nov 2004 14:01:38 -0500 From: Bruce Lilly Reply-To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Organization: Bruce Lilly To: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 11:19:32 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 Cc: ietf-usefor@imc.org References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <87sm7qwnse.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200411201119.32742.blilly@erols.com> Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thu November 4 2004 11:20, Charles Lindsey wrote: > It needs > to be made clear that Netnews and the Web are different media, As (regarding access to services and transport) news and mail are different forms of transport. > and things > must be so that a user who has News access but no Web access is not > disadvantaged. That is specious for two reasons: 1. we are discussing an Internet Standards Track RFC, which is applicable for the Internet and does not impose any requirements on non-Internet use of news. 2. within the domain of the specification (viz. the Internet), there is no reason to differentiate between HTTP, email, etc. access; they are all viable services -- under some conditions a particular group of users might have access to HTTP and NNTP (but not SMTP) or to NNTP and SMTP (but not HTTP) or to HTTP alone (and it is possible to read and post news via web interfaces). From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Mon Nov 22 07:16:53 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA23357 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 2004 07:16:53 -0500 (EST) 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 iAMCCepX049604 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 2004 04:12:41 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAMCCb84049574 for ietf-usefor-skb; Mon, 22 Nov 2004 04:12:37 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp803.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp803.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.140]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id iAMCCVsC049404 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 2004 04:12:36 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-67-7.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.67.7 with poptime) by smtp803.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 22 Nov 2004 12:12:27 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id iAMCCFJ03350 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Mon, 22 Nov 2004 12:12:15 GMT To: LIST: ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20300 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <87u0s5oa3c.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <200411190857.50669.blilly@erols.com> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 11:20:33 GMT Lines: 33 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <200411190857.50669.blilly@erols.com> Bruce Lilly writes: >On Fri November 5 2004 12:36, Charles Lindsey wrote: >> Actually, there is no real reason ever to use the RFC 2231 parameter >> splitting in News I should have been more specific and said I was refering particularly to the case of the Archive and Injection-Info headers, which are news-specific. >Wrong. We have agreed that MIME is to be used, it is obvious that >mail<->news gateways exist, and RFC 2231 is part of the MIME >specification. Sure, if cruft comes in from mail, then we have to accept it as it is. But if you are writing an article for the news environment in the first place, then my remark stands. BTW, the USEFOR draft needs to make it clear that these parameters in the Archive and Injection-Info headers are indeed subject to the usual rules regarding MIME parameters, including RFC 2231. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Mon Nov 22 07:16:54 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA23359 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 2004 07:16:53 -0500 (EST) 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 iAMCCeDB049605 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 2004 04:12:41 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAMCCcCj049578 for ietf-usefor-skb; Mon, 22 Nov 2004 04:12:38 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp803.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp803.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.140]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id iAMCCXiu049436 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 2004 04:12:36 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-67-7.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.67.7 with poptime) by smtp803.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 22 Nov 2004 12:12:29 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id iAMCCK303377 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Mon, 22 Nov 2004 12:12:20 GMT To: LIST: ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20303 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: ***SPAM-3*** Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <4198F210.1049@xyzzy.claranet.de> <200411190923.17497.blilly@erols.com> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 11:42:28 GMT Lines: 60 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <200411190923.17497.blilly@erols.com> Bruce Lilly writes: >On Tue November 16 2004 06:34, Charles Lindsey wrote: >> OK, so I think you are suggesting the following possibilities: >> >> 1. Use Injection-Info with parameter mail-complaints-to=
>> (leaving the possibility open for a separate URL extension later). >> >> 2. Use Injection-Info with parameter mail-complaints-to=
AND with >> a separate complaints-url= (with explicit permission to fold it by >> inserting FWS/CFWS at any point, cf RFC 2017 ???). >> >> 3. Use Complaints-To with
only >> >> 4. Use complaints to with
OR (I think these can be >> distinguished syntactically fairly easily). >You are wrong; the syntax is very close and may pose problems for >some types of parsers. I think you could easily distinguish them using no more than regular expressions. > If you really thought the syntax was easily >distinguishable, then you would have proposed a single parameter >rather than two parameters in #2. I didn't propose it. It was Frank's idea (though a good idea IMO). >> Explicit permission to fold >> the URL as above. >RFC 2017 applies only to parameters in a Content-Type field; >is is inapplicable to any other field. If we write in our standard that RFC 2017, or something like it, applies, then it will apply. > >> Any other options anyone wants? >5.... >6. ... >7. ... Fine, include those if you like. I note that you have not actually expressed any order of preference yet. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Mon Nov 22 07:17:08 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA23444 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 2004 07:17:07 -0500 (EST) 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 iAMCCe2C049606 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 2004 04:12:41 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAMCCcbA049579 for ietf-usefor-skb; Mon, 22 Nov 2004 04:12:38 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp803.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp803.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.140]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id iAMCCV4I049415 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 2004 04:12:36 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-67-7.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.67.7 with poptime) by smtp803.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 22 Nov 2004 12:12:27 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id iAMCCGV03354 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Mon, 22 Nov 2004 12:12:16 GMT To: LIST: ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20301 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <9KhLNobXw-B@khms.westfalen.de> <200411191051.57185.blilly@erols.com> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 11:27:14 GMT Lines: 36 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <200411191051.57185.blilly@erols.com> Bruce Lilly writes: >On Mon November 15 2004 06:27, Charles Lindsey wrote: >> If anyone thinks they are not orthogonal (i.e. would vote differently on >> one of them according to the result of the other, then please speak up). >They are not orthogonal (I might very well vote differently on >any one issue based on outcome of any of the others, if there >were separate independent votes). There are really six distinct >options involved in the three issues listed, as well as other >options that should be considered. >And before we get as far as an actual vote, we ought to set >some ground rules: there are many different voting systems, >each having distinct characteristics (e.g. >http://condorcet.org/emr/methods.shtml >),... It is ultimately up to our Chair how he uses straw votes to decide which option has the best consensus. But if we give our preferences as an ordered list of options, then the method devised by the Marquis de Condorcet has much to commend it (we used that method once before when we had a straw poll here, and it is regularly used with some success when we have CFVs in uk.*). -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Mon Nov 22 08:04:46 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA23358 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 2004 07:16:53 -0500 (EST) 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 iAMCCftp049607 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 2004 04:12:41 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAMCCcUv049580 for ietf-usefor-skb; Mon, 22 Nov 2004 04:12:38 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp803.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp803.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.140]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id iAMCCWVp049426 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 2004 04:12:36 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-67-7.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.67.7 with poptime) by smtp803.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 22 Nov 2004 12:12:28 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id iAMCCHl03362 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Mon, 22 Nov 2004 12:12:17 GMT To: LIST: ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20302 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <87sm7qwnse.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <200411201119.32742.blilly@erols.com> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 11:37:55 GMT Lines: 41 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <200411201119.32742.blilly@erols.com> Bruce Lilly writes: >On Thu November 4 2004 11:20, Charles Lindsey wrote: >> and things >> must be so that a user who has News access but no Web access is not >> disadvantaged. >That is specious for two reasons: >1. we are discussing an Internet Standards Track RFC, which > is applicable for the Internet and does not impose any > requirements on non-Internet use of news. Usenet is not a part of the internet, but 99% of Usenet traffic is in fact carried on the internet, so it makes good sense to standardize it under the auspices of the IETF. So far as I am aware, it has never been the case that the IETF expects that all known internet protocols should be presumed to be available to all internet users, and therefore internet standards do not normally make such presumptions. >2. ... -- under some conditions > a particular group of users might have access to HTTP and NNTP > (but not SMTP) or to NNTP and SMTP (but not HTTP) or to HTTP > alone (and it is possible to read and post news via web interfaces). Yes, but you know perfectly well that it is unusual for News users not to have Email capability, whereas lack of access to the web is less uncommon (for example to people using simple terminals or terminal emulators - I have not tried filling in an abuse web form using Linx, but I doubt it would be an easy task). -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Mon Nov 22 10:22:44 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA07652 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 2004 10:22:43 -0500 (EST) 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 iAMFK3Px080010 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 2004 07:20:03 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAMFK3DU080009 for ietf-usefor-skb; Mon, 22 Nov 2004 07:20:03 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAMFJw41079964 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 2004 07:19:59 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CWFyy-0004Yo-00 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 2004 16:20:00 +0100 Received: from c-134-88-251.hh.dial.de.ignite.net ([62.134.88.251]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 2004 16:20:00 +0100 Received: from nobody by c-134-88-251.hh.dial.de.ignite.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 2004 16:20:00 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Archive (was: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed?) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 16:17:42 +0100 Organization: Lines: 41 Message-ID: <41A20316.1EFE@hamburg.de> References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <87u0s5oa3c.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <200411190857.50669.blilly@erols.com> Reply-To: nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: c-134-88-251.hh.dial.de.ignite.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Charles Lindsey wrote: > the USEFOR draft needs to make it clear that these parameters > in the Archive and Injection-Info headers are indeed subject > to the usual rules regarding MIME parameters That's documented elsewhere, don't mention it. > including RFC 2231. Never ever mention it, arguably it allows weird stuff like boundary*0=next; boundary*1=" "; boundary*2=part Somewhere it says "MUST NOT change the syntax", and the next thing it does is to change the syntax. I really don't like it. | IMPORTANT NOTE: These mechanisms end up being somewhat | gibbous when they actually are used. As such, these | mechanisms should not be used lightly; they should be | reserved for situations where a real need for them exists. With the simple rule "remove FWS and concatenate" for URLs there is no real need for RfC 2231, just use the syntax in Can we get rid of the new "filename" parameter of "Archive" ? Common practice is X-NoArchive: yes, and that's of course weird, but the only relevant case. Almost nobody (*) uses "Summary" or "Keywords", and another irrelevant "filename" in a new "Archive" won't fly. Martin's new "Archived-At" is a good idea, and Usenet will inherit it. Without the dubious "filename" in a completely new "Archive" you'd have eliminated the last reason to mention RfC 2231, and that's a good thing. Bye, Frank *: for "almost nobody uses it" read "I don't use it" ;-) From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Mon Nov 22 10:44:13 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA09581 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 2004 10:44:12 -0500 (EST) 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 iAMFgTss093047 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 2004 07:42:29 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAMFgTYL093046 for ietf-usefor-skb; Mon, 22 Nov 2004 07:42:29 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from spsystems.net (spsystems.net [216.126.83.115]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAMFgQ6R092951 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 2004 07:42:28 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from henry@spsystems.net) Received: from spsystems.net (henry@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spsystems.net (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id iAMFgFcC004002; Mon, 22 Nov 2004 10:42:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from henry@localhost) by spsystems.net (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id iAMFgEKU004001; Mon, 22 Nov 2004 10:42:14 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 10:42:14 -0500 (EST) From: Henry Spencer To: Usefor Mailing List Subject: poll methodology (was Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, Charles Lindsey wrote: > It is ultimately up to our Chair how he uses straw votes to decide which > option has the best consensus. But if we give our preferences as an > ordered list of options, then the method devised by the Marquis de > Condorcet has much to commend it (we used that method once before when we > had a straw poll here... Yes, and unfortunately, that one use also showed a big disadvantage of this method: interpretation of the results is non-trivial and is prone to misunderstandings by those unfamiliar with the method. On the whole, I fear that a simpler method (e.g. approval voting: mark X on every option you can live with) is preferable. Henry Spencer henry@spsystems.net From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Tue Nov 23 07:15:55 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA02520 for ; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 07:15:54 -0500 (EST) 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 iANCCr2r038185 for ; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 04:12:53 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iANCCrvi038184 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 04:12:53 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp811.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp811.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.201]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id iANCCkG7038017 for ; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 04:12:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-76-169.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.76.169 with poptime) by smtp811.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 23 Nov 2004 12:12:26 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id iANCCDB12788 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 12:12:13 GMT To: LIST: ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20306 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: poll methodology (was Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed?) Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 11:03:09 GMT Lines: 35 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In Henry Spencer writes: >On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, Charles Lindsey wrote: >> It is ultimately up to our Chair how he uses straw votes to decide which >> option has the best consensus. But if we give our preferences as an >> ordered list of options, then the method devised by the Marquis de >> Condorcet has much to commend it (we used that method once before when we >> had a straw poll here... >Yes, and unfortunately, that one use also showed a big disadvantage of >this method: interpretation of the results is non-trivial and is prone to >misunderstandings by those unfamiliar with the method. On the whole, I >fear that a simpler method (e.g. approval voting: mark X on every option >you can live with) is preferable. If you include, in your list of preferences, the point at which "I could live with the ones above this, but not those below", then you have enough information to analyze the results either way (and that is more or less how it was done on the last occasion). One of the nicest features of Condorcet's scheme is that there is nothing you can do by way of sneaky "tactical voting" that will bring you any advantage over what you get by giving your honest opinion of which order your preferences lie in. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Tue Nov 23 07:15:56 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA02537 for ; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 07:15:56 -0500 (EST) 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 iANCCYkT037954 for ; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 04:12:34 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iANCCY6f037953 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 04:12:34 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp811.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp811.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.201]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id iANCCW1I037851 for ; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 04:12:33 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-76-169.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.76.169 with poptime) by smtp811.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 23 Nov 2004 12:12:27 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id iANCCEG12798 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 12:12:14 GMT To: LIST: ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20307 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: Archive (was: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed?) Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <87u0s5oa3c.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <200411190857.50669.blilly@erols.com> <41A20316.1EFE@hamburg.de> Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 11:40:07 GMT Lines: 74 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <41A20316.1EFE@hamburg.de> Frank Ellermann writes: >Charles Lindsey wrote: >> the USEFOR draft needs to make it clear that these parameters >> in the Archive and Injection-Info headers are indeed subject >> to the usual rules regarding MIME parameters >That's documented elsewhere, don't mention it. No, it isn't documented elsewhere. It is documented as regards the Content-Type header in RFC 2045 (+2231) and as regards the Content-Disposition header in RFC 2183 (+2231). But nowhere does it say it applies to the Archive header and the Injection-Info header. So it needs a few words in USEFOR to make it clear. >> including RFC 2231. >Never ever mention it, arguably it allows weird stuff like >boundary*0=next; boundary*1=" "; boundary*2=part I think it has to be mentioned, because such constructs are going to turn up from mail (certainly in Content-Type and Content-Disposition). Moreover we might get files names or Injection-info parameters in non-ASCII charsets, and these also rely on RFC 2231. And Bruce Lilly will be screaming blue murder if we don't mention it (and for once I might agree with him :-( ). But I agree that there should never be a need to use the extended line feature in News, and I would have no problem if USEFOR were to point this out. >Somewhere it says "MUST NOT change the syntax", and the next >thing it does is to change the syntax. I really don't like it. No, the strange things introduced by RFC 2231 were already legal under RFC 2045. It's just that some strange parameters that noone was ever likely to write in Real Life suddenly acquired a new semantics. The same is true of RFC 2047. >Can we get rid of the new "filename" parameter of "Archive" ? >Common practice is X-NoArchive: yes, and that's of course >weird, but the only relevant case. Almost nobody (*) uses >"Summary" or "Keywords", and another irrelevant "filename" in >a new "Archive" won't fly. Martin's new "Archived-At" is a >good idea, and Usenet will inherit it. No, Martin's "Archived-At" doesn't do quite the same thing. Agreed the filename parameter of our Archive header is of no interest to Google. But one can foresee other applications for this header (and one I have particularly in mind is the Archive pseudo header currently used by the news.answers moderators, which is actually a part of the body and comes unstuck if ever you want to write a FAQ as a multipart (e.g. as a miltipart/digest); so I think the news.answers people are going to have to move to something different sooner or later anyway. And, in any case, it is unlikely that a filename parameter will ever be so long as to need RFC 2231 splitting, and I would still prefer it to extend beyond 79 characters (whatever) than to split it. And that too could be pointed out in USEFOR. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Tue Nov 23 15:10:38 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA17575 for ; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 15:10:38 -0500 (EST) 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 iANK8Qae007495 for ; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 12:08:26 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iANK8QRL007494 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 12:08:26 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iANK8PBQ007487 for ; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 12:08:26 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rbunch@cnri.reston.va.us) Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA17357; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 15:08:27 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200411232008.PAA17357@ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Cc: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-usefor-usefor-02.txt Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 15:08:27 -0500 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Usenet Article Standard Update Working Group of the IETF. Title : News Article Format Author(s) : C. Lindsey, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-usefor-usefor-02.txt Pages : 29 Date : 2004-11-23 This document specifies the syntax of network news (Netnews) articles in the context of the 'Internet Message Format' (RFC 2822) and 'Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME)' (RFC 2045). This document supersedes RFC 1036, updating it to reflect current practice and incorporating incremental changes specified in other documents. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-usefor-usefor-02.txt To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce to change your subscription settings. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-usefor-usefor-02.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-usefor-usefor-02.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2004-11-23142304.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-usefor-usefor-02.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-usefor-usefor-02.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2004-11-23142304.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Tue Nov 23 15:45:09 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA24082 for ; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 15:45:09 -0500 (EST) 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 iANKhlgt017616 for ; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 12:43:47 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iANKhlsV017615 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 12:43:47 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from spsystems.net (spsystems.net [216.126.83.115]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iANKhklv017526 for ; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 12:43:46 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from henry@spsystems.net) Received: from spsystems.net (henry@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spsystems.net (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id iANKhScC026598; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 15:43:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from henry@localhost) by spsystems.net (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id iANKhRWx026597; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 15:43:27 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 15:43:27 -0500 (EST) From: Henry Spencer To: Usefor Mailing List Subject: Re: poll methodology (was Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Charles Lindsey wrote: > >...interpretation of the results is non-trivial and is prone to > >misunderstandings by those unfamiliar with the method. On the whole, I > >fear that a simpler method (e.g. approval voting: mark X on every option > >you can live with) is preferable. > > If you include, in your list of preferences, the point at which "I could > live with the ones above this, but not those below", then you have enough > information to analyze the results either way... If you analyze *both* ways, that makes the results *still more* complex, and still more prone to misinterpretation by people unfamiliar with non-traditional voting schemes. My point is that we need something which yields *simpler* results. Yes, Condorcet's scheme has advantages. But its complexity also incurs serious practical disadvantages in this context, and it seems to me that a simpler scheme is preferable despite being theoretically inferior. Classical vote-for-only-one definitely is *too* simple for a multi-way choice. But remember that what we are after, as an IETF WG, is not necessarily the best solution, but a workable one that most people can live with. So indicating which choices you can live with is the important part in a consensus-assessing poll. Only if there are multiple choices which are about equally acceptable do we have any need to consider whether there's a consensus preferring one or the other. To my mind, it seems preferable to handle such a case -- should it arise -- by just conducting a second tie-breaker poll. Henry Spencer henry@spsystems.net From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Tue Nov 23 21:39:14 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA04320 for ; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 21:39:14 -0500 (EST) 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 iAO2Yn2G024478 for ; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 18:34:49 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAO2Yn2r024477 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 18:34:49 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAO2Yjmw024456 for ; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 18:34:46 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CWmzY-0003bt-00 for ; Wed, 24 Nov 2004 03:34:48 +0100 Received: from du-001-010.access.de.clara.net ([212.82.227.10]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 24 Nov 2004 03:34:48 +0100 Received: from nobody by du-001-010.access.de.clara.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 24 Nov 2004 03:34:48 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: msg-id Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 02:52:19 +0100 Organization: Lines: 32 Message-ID: <41A3E953.3856@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <200411232008.PAA17357@ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: du-001-010.access.de.clara.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, just seen in the new draft-ietf-usefor-02.txt : | message-id = "Message-ID:" SP msg-id CRLF | msg-id = [FWS] msg-id-core [FWS] | msg-id-core = "<" id-left "@" id-right ">" What's the idea here ? The left [FWS] should be [*WSP], we don't want a CRLF at this place. For lists of msg-ids (as in "References:") the right FWS allows to fold between msg-ids. | no-fold-quote = DQUOTE | *( mqtext / "\\" / "\" DQUOTE ) | mqspecial | *( mqtext / "\\" / "\" DQUOTE ) | DQUOTE Why is this so different from RfC 2822 ? Apparently you want at least one "mqspecial" here: \" ( ) , . : ; < @ [ \\ ] i.e. 34 40 41 44 46 58..60 64 91..93 And you allow only two quoted-pairs \\ and \". That's related to the discussion about a news URL, isn't it ? You allow NO-WS-CTL, but not with a backslash. And you don't allow >, not even \>. That's very confusing. I've a vague idea what you want, some kind of "normalized msg-id", that's good, but I'm not yet convinced that the result is ok. Why not simply copy address-literal from 2821 for id-right ? All these weird cases like \[ \] etc. are then illegal. We probably also find something better for id-left. Bye, Frank From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Tue Nov 23 22:26:22 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA08252 for ; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 22:26:22 -0500 (EST) 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 iAO3PD5R043034 for ; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 19:25:13 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAO3PDPf043033 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 19:25:13 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAO3PBMQ043014 for ; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 19:25:12 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CWnmP-0005k0-00 for ; Wed, 24 Nov 2004 04:25:17 +0100 Received: from du-001-010.access.de.clara.net ([212.82.227.10]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 24 Nov 2004 04:25:17 +0100 Received: from nobody by du-001-010.access.de.clara.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 24 Nov 2004 04:25:17 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Archive Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 04:22:49 +0100 Organization: Lines: 78 Message-ID: <41A3FE89.5C68@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <87u0s5oa3c.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <200411190857.50669.blilly@erols.com> <41A20316.1EFE@hamburg.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: du-001-010.access.de.clara.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Charles Lindsey wrote: > we might get files names or Injection-info parameters in > non-ASCII charsets, and these also rely on RFC 2231. Not really, you could say 2047 where you said 2045 + 2231, 2231 has nothing to do with character sets. > Bruce Lilly will be screaming blue murder if we don't > mention it (and for once I might agree with him :-( ). Unfortunately I forgot the second part of 2231 with the language tags for 2047, and that part is okay, in fact I like it. But the first part is a PITA. > I agree that there should never be a need to use the > extended line feature in News Then let's get rid of the filename parameter in Archive, otherwise it is necesseary. > the strange things introduced by RFC 2231 were already > legal under RFC 2045. I've never seen a boundary*0=something in the wild, and it would break "some" user agents and spam filters. What a wonderful toy for spammers and worm authors, :-( > Martin's "Archived-At" doesn't do quite the same thing. It does something useful, it establishes a "Permalink" (that's hacker slang for a URL meant to stay some time) > the filename parameter of our Archive header is of no > interest to Google. It's of no interest for everybody, it's much less relevant than any X-Face, and we don't specify a new Face: header. > I have particularly in mind is the Archive pseudo header > currently used by the news.answers moderators Okay, let's assume that the WWW does not exist, and that you are a collector of FAQs posted in news.answers: They have already a working solution for their problem, if it ain't broken don't fix it. Back to the 3rd millenium, the WWW exists, Martin's idea is good, and a standard way to propose filenames for FAQ collectors comes at least 10 years too late for everybody. > the news.answers people are going to have to move to > something different sooner or later anyway. They run on auto-pilot, they are no people, they are bots. I tried to reach a human being at faqs.org, because links to the plain text RfC versions don't work => forget it. > it is unlikely that a filename parameter will ever be so > long as to need RFC 2231 splitting Maybe it wants a RfC 2231 language, that's not much better. The concept of proposing a filename for a posted file is dubious, the I-D list and the RfC-editor list work without posting files. Newsgroups with binaries apparently also work without this "feature" (but don't ask me how). > I would still prefer it to extend beyond 79 characters > (whatever) than to split it There, it doesn't work on my FAT partitions, but it needs its own section in the security considerations. Please let's get rid of it, there's a limit for pretending that the WWW doesn't exist, proposed filenames are beyond it. Bye, Frank From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Wed Nov 24 08:08:58 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA21261 for ; Wed, 24 Nov 2004 08:08:58 -0500 (EST) 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 iAOD7I6T074844 for ; Wed, 24 Nov 2004 05:07:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAOD7IPw074842 for ietf-usefor-skb; Wed, 24 Nov 2004 05:07:18 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.61]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAOD7Hkb074797 for ; Wed, 24 Nov 2004 05:07:17 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from blilly@erols.com) X-Info: This message was accepted for relay by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net as the sender used SMTP authentication X-Trace: uR+4butJbfRV+a/AmqXz1LC3/d9x90PVraQAuQUpFCw= Received: from wireless-12-40-110-56.bryantpark.org ([12.40.110.56] helo=mail.blilly.com) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #7) id 1CWwrd-0000Mp-00; Wed, 24 Nov 2004 08:07:17 -0500 Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.blilly.com with ESMTP id iAOD7FCr012553(8.12.10/8.12.10/mail.blilly.com sendmail.mc.mail 1.18 2004/05/15 07:23:45) ; Wed, 24 Nov 2004 08:07:16 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by marty.blilly.com with ESMTP id iAOD7Fw9012552(8.12.10/8.12.10/blilly.com submit.mc 1.1 2003/08/26 22:21:33) ; Wed, 24 Nov 2004 08:07:15 -0500 From: Bruce Lilly Reply-To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Organization: Bruce Lilly To: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Archive Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 08:07:13 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 Cc: ietf-usefor@imc.org References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <41A3FE89.5C68@xyzzy.claranet.de> In-Reply-To: <41A3FE89.5C68@xyzzy.claranet.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200411240807.14217.blilly@erols.com> Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tue November 23 2004 22:22, Frank Ellermann wrote: > > Charles Lindsey wrote: > > > we might get files names or Injection-info parameters in > > non-ASCII charsets, and these also rely on RFC 2231. > > Not really, you could say 2047 where you said 2045 + 2231, > 2231 has nothing to do with character sets. No, RFC 2047 (as amended by RFC 2231 and errata) applies only to human-readable content, viz. unstructured fields, comments, and RFC [2822] phrases. > > Martin's "Archived-At" doesn't do quite the same thing. > > It does something useful, it establishes a "Permalink" > (that's hacker slang for a URL meant to stay some time) It's not at all clear how that would work on Usenet; it's defined in terms of a mailing list, where a single host (the list expander) makes an archive copy, then redistributes the message. Usenet messages are archived all over the place, by multiple sites at various points during propagation. If an Archived-At field could be added at any time, there will be multiple copies of what is ostensibly the "same" message, with different sets of fields pointing to different places. > > the filename parameter of our Archive header is of no > > interest to Google. > > It's of no interest for everybody, it's much less relevant > than any X-Face, and we don't specify a new Face: header. I tend to agree with Frank here. > Back to the 3rd millenium, the WWW exists, Martin's idea > is good, and a standard way to propose filenames for FAQ > collectors comes at least 10 years too late for everybody. It's not about file names per se, but about URIs for accessing messages. From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Wed Nov 24 22:15:30 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA02377 for ; Wed, 24 Nov 2004 22:15:30 -0500 (EST) 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 iAP3Ci3j073692 for ; Wed, 24 Nov 2004 19:12:44 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAP3CiVZ073691 for ietf-usefor-skb; Wed, 24 Nov 2004 19:12:44 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp814.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp814.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.204]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id iAP3ChDO073293 for ; Wed, 24 Nov 2004 19:12:43 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-68-235.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.68.235 with poptime) by smtp814.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 25 Nov 2004 03:12:22 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id iAP3CBn29678 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 03:12:11 GMT To: LIST: ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20310 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: msg-id Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <200411232008.PAA17357@ietf.org> <41A3E953.3856@xyzzy.claranet.de> Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 22:58:19 GMT Lines: 80 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <41A3E953.3856@xyzzy.claranet.de> Frank Ellermann writes: >Hi, just seen in the new draft-ietf-usefor-02.txt : >| message-id = "Message-ID:" SP msg-id CRLF >| msg-id = [FWS] msg-id-core [FWS] >| msg-id-core = "<" id-left "@" id-right ">" >What's the idea here ? The left [FWS] should be [*WSP], we >don't want a CRLF at this place. For lists of msg-ids (as in >"References:") the right FWS allows to fold between msg-ids. We have agreed that there will be no comments in Message-ID headers, hence the change from CFWS to FWS at that point. But folding is, in principle, allowed. Actually, as it turns out, you can't now have folding there, but that is only because of the separate rule that says that the content of a header line cannot be just whitespace. Indeed, that could be pointed out, but I would prefer not to make the syntax any more different from RFC 2822 than it needs to be. >| no-fold-quote = DQUOTE >| *( mqtext / "\\" / "\" DQUOTE ) >| mqspecial >| *( mqtext / "\\" / "\" DQUOTE ) >| DQUOTE >Why is this so different from RfC 2822 ? Apparently you want >at least one "mqspecial" here: >\" ( ) , . : ; < @ [ \\ ] i.e. 34 40 41 44 46 58..60 64 91..93 Indeed so. The example given shows the problem. <"abcd"@example.com> <"ab\cd"@example.com> are all the same semantically under RFC 2822, but they would certainly not be treated the same by any news software currently deployed, and the performance hit of so requiring would be intolerable. Note that the syntax now given is exactly what has been in our drafts for a long time now. >And you allow only two quoted-pairs \\ and \". That's related >to the discussion about a news URL, isn't it ? Yes, I tried to ensure that the new News URL draft would follow the same rule. >You allow NO-WS-CTL, but not with a backslash. And you don't >allow >, not even \>. That's very confusing. No. Some news software uses any '>' as indicating the end of the message-id. > I've a vague >idea what you want, some kind of "normalized msg-id", that's >good, but I'm not yet convinced that the result is ok. Yes, and that is exactly what the given syntax enforces. It is ugly, but it works. >Why not simply copy address-literal from 2821 for id-right ? >All these weird cases like \[ \] etc. are then illegal. We >probably also find something better for id-left. Bye, Frank Because RFC2822 allows an id-right to be much more than an address-literal from RFC 2821. I don't know why, but that is the way it is, and we are supposed to be making the minimum necessary change from RFC 2822. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Thu Nov 25 01:02:29 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA16462 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 01:02:29 -0500 (EST) 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 iAP60ibM038192 for ; Wed, 24 Nov 2004 22:00:44 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAP60ibK038187 for ietf-usefor-skb; Wed, 24 Nov 2004 22:00:44 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAP60gPO037971 for ; Wed, 24 Nov 2004 22:00:43 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CXCgN-0002MR-00 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 07:00:43 +0100 Received: from 212.82.251.115 ([212.82.251.115]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 07:00:42 +0100 Received: from nobody by 212.82.251.115 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 07:00:42 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: msg-id Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 06:41:41 +0100 Organization: Lines: 138 Message-ID: <41A57095.5AA4@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <200411232008.PAA17357@ietf.org> <41A3E953.3856@xyzzy.claranet.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.82.251.115 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Charles Lindsey wrote: > We have agreed that there will be no comments in Message-ID > headers, hence the change from CFWS to FWS at that point. Yes, that's clear, but *WSP instead of [FWS] would avoid the illegal folding. Actually both [FWS], the right [FWS] has the same problem as the left [FWS]. You could replace quite a lot of {FWS] by *WSP, not only in this header. > But folding is, in principle, allowed. Actually, as it turns > out, you can't now have folding there, but that is only > because of the separate rule that says that the content of a > header line cannot be just whitespace. That separate rule is no nonsense, it's a MUST. If you could express an essential rule in the syntax, why not just do it ? > I would prefer not to make the syntax any more different from > RFC 2822 than it needs to be. Okay, doing it _only_ for msg-id is bad, but generally I'd like it. You have it in unstructured, msg-id, newsgroup-list, path-list, control, and dist-list. Always a similar pattern: whatever = "header:" SP stuff CRLF stuff = *( [FWS] item ) [FWS] That's IMHO wrong, you want at least one non-empty item. You could fix it with something like: stuff = *WSP item *( [FWS] item ) *WSP E.g. old: unstructured = 1*( [FWS] utext ) [FWS] new: unstructured = *WSP utext *( [FWS] utext ) *WSP If that's most definitely not what you want you're forced to replace "MUST contain at least one non-whitespace character" by an equivalent SHOULD. "MAY accept headers which do not contain the required space" is also dubious, because there are actually two possibilities: No SP, just header:stuff, or header:stuff. My "popstop" script had to be fixed, because it didn't expect the in a MIME header. Maybe it's better to add "or use instead of the required space" to this "MAY". Where the syntax later reflects "MUST generate headers so that at least one space" etc. That's "MUST generate header fields" etc. for some of us. [normalized msg-id-core] > The example given shows the problem. > > <"abcd"@example.com> > <"ab\cd"@example.com> > are all the same semantically under RFC 2822 No chance to treat it literally, three different Message-IDs ? It's the problem of the UA or server generating this crap, if it breaks they own the pieces. What do you expect from a poor mail2news gateway, should it try to "fix" these weird constructs ? > the syntax now given is exactly what has been in our drafts > for a long time now. Yes, I never saw that it's so different from 2822, but the new "mqtext" somehow attracted my attention. And the 2822 solution is not better, apparently they tried to get away with as less restrictions as possible. But if you want another better syntax, then you could IMHO use something known like the "domain" in 2821 (maybe minus the "1" for at least one dot, let host "TV" have its own Message-IDs :) > I tried to ensure that the new News URL draft would follow > the same rule. That's good, but the "\" in a quoted pair should be no problem, if it's reserved %5C works. For the news URL it would be more interesting to get rid of %d37 "%" in mqtext and mdtext somehow, You've already eliminated %d62 ">" resp. the quoted-pair "\>". > Some news software uses any '>' as indicating the end of the > message-id. Even in the form <"\>"@host.UUCP> ? Isn't that just broken ? Not that I like the idea, in fact I'd prefer an id-left without no-fold-quote. Who wants NO-WS-CTL in a Message-ID, it's just weird, it allows BEL and ESC and NAK and SUB (= DOS EOF), I've never seen that somewhere, it crashes any decent system before it's injected. > It is ugly, but it works. I really doubt it, 2822 is way too tolerant, NO-WS-CTL has no place in a Message-ID, and id-right should be a 2821 "domain" (i.e. incl. address literals) > I don't know why, but that is the way it is It's wrong. The 2822 folks had no idea that Message-IDs are sacrosanct, our relevant scriptures are STD 11 and RfC 1036: | In order to conform to RFC-822, the Message-ID must have the | format: | | | where full_domain_name is the full name of the host at which | the message entered the network, including a domain that host | is in, and unique is any string of printing ASCII characters, | not including "<" (left angle bracket), ">" (right angle | bracket), or "@" (at sign). _That_ is a Message-ID. Anything else is rubbish. My private bible even explains the details: | NOTE: News message IDs are a restricted subset of | MAIL message IDs. In particular, no existing news | software copes properly with MAIL quoting conven- | tions within the local part, so they are forbid- | den. This is unfortunate, particularly for X.400 | gateways that often wish to include characters | which are not legal in unquoted message IDs, but | it is impossible to fix net-wide. Ten years later, almost all X.400 gateways are now in a museum, it's not more "unfortunate" and still "forbidden". We're not obliged to copy the bugs of 2822, we need something that works. In other words, as soon as it's clear that you MUST derive from 2822, then you're IMO automatically free to do "the right thing". Bye, Frank From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Thu Nov 25 08:45:13 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA12119 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 08:45:13 -0500 (EST) 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 iAPDhflj001439 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 05:43:41 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAPDhff7001438 for ietf-usefor-skb; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 05:43:41 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAPDhcim001259 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 05:43:41 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from alexey.melnikov-usefor@isode.com) Received: from [172.16.0.116] (shiny.isode.com [62.3.217.250]) by rufus.isode.com via TCP (internal) with ESMTPA; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 13:43:27 +0000 Message-ID: <41A5CE50.8020307@isode.com> Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 12:21:36 +0000 From: Alexey Melnikov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Charles Lindsey CC: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <87sm7qwnse.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <200411201119.32742.blilly@erols.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Charles Lindsey wrote: >In <200411201119.32742.blilly@erols.com> Bruce Lilly writes: > > >>On Thu November 4 2004 11:20, Charles Lindsey wrote: >> >> >>>and things >>>must be so that a user who has News access but no Web access is not >>>disadvantaged. >>> >>> >>That is specious for two reasons: >>1. we are discussing an Internet Standards Track RFC, which >> is applicable for the Internet and does not impose any >> requirements on non-Internet use of news. >> >> > >Usenet is not a part of the internet, but 99% of Usenet traffic is in fact >carried on the internet, so it makes good sense to standardize it under >the auspices of the IETF. So far as I am aware, it has never been the case >that the IETF expects that all known internet protocols should be presumed >to be available to all internet users, and therefore internet standards do >not normally make such presumptions. > > I've participated in an IAB Workshop on Messaging recently and several participants have expressed wish to be able to tie different protocols together: access resources of one in another, etc. This suggest strong user's desire for protocol convergence. I think new standards should not make such convergence more difficult. >>2. ... -- under some conditions >> a particular group of users might have access to HTTP and NNTP >> (but not SMTP) or to NNTP and SMTP (but not HTTP) or to HTTP >> alone (and it is possible to read and post news via web interfaces). >> >> > >Yes, but you know perfectly well that it is unusual for News users not to >have Email capability, whereas lack of access to the web is less uncommon >(for example to people using simple terminals or terminal emulators - I >have not tried filling in an abuse web form using Linx, but I doubt it >would be an easy task). > > Maybe there is a need in "abuse web form considered harmful" document. But this is generally not an argument against URLs. From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Thu Nov 25 08:45:19 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA12154 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 08:45:18 -0500 (EST) 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 iAPDhgW0001456 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 05:43:42 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAPDhgMS001455 for ietf-usefor-skb; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 05:43:42 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAPDhcin001259 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 05:43:41 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from alexey.melnikov-usefor@isode.com) Received: from [172.16.0.116] (shiny.isode.com [62.3.217.250]) by rufus.isode.com via TCP (internal) with ESMTPA; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 13:43:27 +0000 Message-ID: <41A5CFD3.2040906@isode.com> Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 12:28:03 +0000 From: Alexey Melnikov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? References: <7468147AEE316B41B3B55152959CE218129253@dul1wnexm05.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <200411201126.22545.blilly@erols.com> In-Reply-To: <200411201126.22545.blilly@erols.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bruce Lilly wrote: >On Fri November 19 2004 11:11, Scott Hollenbeck wrote: > > >>Confirming the last sentence: the IETF does not use voting to determine >>consensus. >> >>OK, OK, I know that we *do* use hums and straw polls, which may be >>considered a form of voting, to help determine consensus. See section 3.3 >>of RFC 2418 for guidelines describing what should be done to determine >>consensus. RFC 3929 may also be helpful for issues that are particularly >>contentious. >> >>-Scott- >>(speaking as area advisor) >> >> > >Just to avoid misinterpretation of my remarks as criticism of the Chair, >I'd like to clarify two points: >1. Although there was some concern about an early "60%" criterion, > the Chair has since affirmed that voting is not intended to be used > to determine consensus > > That is correct. A good technical argument always wins. >2. The Chair did not initiate discussion of a "vote" or a euphemism > for a vote (e.g. "count heads") in this matter. > > No, I didn't initiate voting. >Regarding "straw polls", my remarks about voting still largely apply; >we need to agree on methods, ensure that *all* points of view are >represented *fairly*, etc. > > My personal opinion on "straw polls" is that 1). they help to see if people has changed their mind during recent discussions 2). they are useful to make a decision when there is no strong technical argument(s) to choose one solution over another. Alexey From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Thu Nov 25 08:45:24 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA12177 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 08:45:24 -0500 (EST) 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 iAPDhfCj001414 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 05:43:41 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAPDhfUH001413 for ietf-usefor-skb; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 05:43:41 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAPDhcil001259 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 05:43:40 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from alexey.melnikov-usefor@isode.com) Received: from [172.16.0.116] (shiny.isode.com [62.3.217.250]) by rufus.isode.com via TCP (internal) with ESMTPA; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 13:43:25 +0000 Message-ID: <41A5CCF3.4020601@isode.com> Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 12:15:47 +0000 From: Alexey Melnikov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Russ Allbery CC: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <417414F5.6020500@isode.com> <87sm7t6n4e.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <41877F8C.7000402@isode.com> <4187E75F.1099@xyzzy.claranet.de> <4188C9F0.6020905@isode.com> <4188CAD0.1080902@isode.com> <41895E2E.5C57@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87sm7qwnse.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <418A41B4.7498@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87u0s5oa3c.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <418B6F21.5A5D@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87oeicrzj4.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87r7n4rzln.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> In-Reply-To: <87r7n4rzln.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Russ Allbery wrote: >Charles Lindsey writes: > > >>If we are agreed that it is a Bad Thing for ISPs to be requiring users >>to use web forms for abuse complaints (and I think we are, and the >>consensus on the news.net-abuse.* groups supports us), >> >> One can't force the market. People have tried to do that many times, but I don't remember any successful attempt. >I don't actually agree with this. I just think it's pointless to try to >argue it with the people here. > > >>then the first thing you do is to ensure that the syntax provided in >>your complaints-header does not afford them that opportunity. >> >> > >This is putting policy that might change into the standard. I think this >is a hideously bad idea for all of the reasons that I've previously stated >and that have been discussed on the mailing list for the last three or >four years, the same reasons that have resulted in splitting the policy >document off to USEAGE. > > I agree. We should keep policy separate, or we might regret our policy choices made-into-standard down the road. Alexey From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Thu Nov 25 08:45:44 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA12227 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 08:45:43 -0500 (EST) 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 iAPDhdGW001391 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 05:43:39 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAPDhdaS001390 for ietf-usefor-skb; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 05:43:39 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAPDhcij001259 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 05:43:38 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from alexey.melnikov-usefor@isode.com) Received: from [172.16.0.116] (shiny.isode.com [62.3.217.250]) by rufus.isode.com via TCP (internal) with ESMTPA; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 13:43:18 +0000 Message-ID: <41A5BF70.4010008@isode.com> Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 11:18:08 +0000 From: Alexey Melnikov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Thorfinn CC: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? References: <4188CAD0.1080902@isode.com> <41895E2E.5C57@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87sm7qwnse.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <418A41B4.7498@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87u0s5oa3c.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <418B6F21.5A5D@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87oeicrzj4.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87r7n4rzln.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <20041110000028.GA25763@dora.tertius.net.au> In-Reply-To: <20041110000028.GA25763@dora.tertius.net.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thorfinn wrote: >>>I don't actually agree with this. I just think it's pointless to try to >>>argue it with the people here. >>> >>> >>With a mail abuse address, you can to a large extent automate the process >>of sending a LART (e.g. by generating a mail message with the right To: >>address and with the full headers already pasted into it; so you just have >>to add some text explaining that this is a spam, or whatever). >>But every web site interface is different. Each LART has to be constructed >>by hand by a human, including cutting and pasting a set of full headers >>into whatever box (usually too small) the web site deigns to provide. >> >> > >Huh? If it's a URL, you (the ISP) just embed a message identifier of >some kind into the URL. Complaining about it is as simple as clicking >on the URL, and voila, done, complaint registered, no user interaction >required. > > And there are many RPC proposals that run over HTTP transport (not that I am advocating their usage). So the argument that this is difficult to automate doesn't seem convincing. > [...] >And reader agents are free to just ignore anything that isn't a mailto:... >I don't think we're putting any requirement on them to necessarily do >anything *with* a Complaints-To: header, are we? > > Correct. From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Thu Nov 25 09:20:41 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA15461 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 09:20:41 -0500 (EST) 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 iAPEJMe3018889 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 06:19:22 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAPEJM6d018888 for ietf-usefor-skb; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 06:19:22 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from spsystems.net (spsystems.net [216.126.83.115]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAPEJL7M018834 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 06:19:21 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from henry@spsystems.net) Received: from spsystems.net (henry@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spsystems.net (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id iAPEJ3cC027405; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 09:19:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (from henry@localhost) by spsystems.net (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id iAPEJ3Hm027404; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 09:19:03 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 09:19:02 -0500 (EST) From: Henry Spencer To: Usefor Mailing List Subject: Re: msg-id In-Reply-To: <41A57095.5AA4@xyzzy.claranet.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Thu, 25 Nov 2004, Frank Ellermann wrote: > > > > <"abcd"@example.com> > > <"ab\cd"@example.com> > > are all the same semantically under RFC 2822 > > No chance to treat it literally, three different Message-IDs ? That's still different from RFC 2822; moreover, it's incompatible too. (Remember that there is some use of mail tools to manipulate news, so not *everything* will see them as differing.) If we must be different -- and we really have no choice about that, given our installed base -- it's better to be compatible, by restricting news to the subset where the two behaviors are indistinguishable. In principle, this outlaws stuff that news now accepts. In practice, there has never been significant use of such constructs in news message IDs, so tightening the rules to exclude it seems workable. > What do you expect from a poor mail2news gateway, should it > try to "fix" these weird constructs ? As with other areas where we are more restrictive, it must cope somehow: discard, reject and return, or fix up somehow. Trying to pretend that news software is just as permissive as mail software simply doesn't work, because it's *not*. > > Some news software uses any '>' as indicating the end of the > > message-id. > > Even in the form <"\>"@host.UUCP> ? Isn't that just broken ? No, it's *different*. And this is an area where news software has always been different; ">" has always been completely forbidden within news message IDs. RFC 1036 unfortunately neglected to outlaw the quoting characters, an omission that son-of-1036 remedied. Henry Spencer henry@spsystems.net From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Thu Nov 25 09:30:34 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA12181 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 08:45:24 -0500 (EST) 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 iAPDheE4001403 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 05:43:40 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAPDheK2001402 for ietf-usefor-skb; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 05:43:40 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAPDhcik001259 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 05:43:39 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from alexey.melnikov-usefor@isode.com) Received: from [172.16.0.116] (shiny.isode.com [62.3.217.250]) by rufus.isode.com via TCP (internal) with ESMTPA; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 13:43:23 +0000 Message-ID: <41A5C24F.3090603@isode.com> Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 11:30:23 +0000 From: Alexey Melnikov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: ***SPAM-3*** Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <200411190923.17497.blilly@erols.com> <200411201144.22926.blilly@erols.com> In-Reply-To: <200411201144.22926.blilly@erols.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bruce Lilly wrote: >On Fri November 19 2004 09:23, Bruce Lilly wrote: > > >>On Tue November 16 2004 06:34, Charles Lindsey wrote: >> >> >>>Any other options anyone wants? >>> >>> > >8. A separate field whose field body specifies a list of URIs (so > that multiple supported alternative methods of reporting abuse > can be specified), perhaps something like the (incompletely- > specified) List- fields of RFC 2369. > > I just want to note that I would like to be able to have multiple URIs. Whether they are in a separate header or part of the Injection-Info header - this is secondary to me. From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Thu Nov 25 09:30:35 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA12120 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 08:45:13 -0500 (EST) 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 iAPDhhhh001479 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 05:43:43 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAPDhhPu001477 for ietf-usefor-skb; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 05:43:43 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAPDhcio001259 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 05:43:42 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from alexey.melnikov-usefor@isode.com) Received: from [172.16.0.116] (shiny.isode.com [62.3.217.250]) by rufus.isode.com via TCP (internal) with ESMTPA; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 13:43:28 +0000 Message-ID: <41A5D0CB.3020508@isode.com> Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 12:32:11 +0000 From: Alexey Melnikov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Charles Lindsey CC: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Is this a STraw Poll? (was Standardize Complaints-To as deployed) References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <87oeicrzj4.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87r7n4rzln.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <9KhLNobXw-B@khms.westfalen.de> <4198F210.1049@xyzzy.claranet.de> <419CD6A4.6010402@isode.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Charles Lindsey wrote: >In <419CD6A4.6010402@isode.com> Alexey Melnikov writes: > > >>Charles Lindsey wrote: >> >> >>>OK, so I think you are suggesting the following possibilities: >>> >>> > >Alexey has given his preference order as #2, #1, #3, #4. > >Does this mean we are all supposed to express out preference order now? If >so, then my order is #3, #1, (|), #2, #4 > > No, I didn't start a straw poll, but people can express their opinion at any time (opinion can be sent directly to me, if you prefer). If we all just happen to magically agree, we can move on to more interesting topics. >The "(|)" in the middle is my consenus limit (i.e. I could live with >anything to the left of it, but would be most unhappy with anything to the >right). > >[...] > >>I would prefer #2, followed by #1 and #3. >> >> >>As a chair I would note that I see no consensus to use mail-complaint-to >>over complaints-url. >> >> > >Nor does there seem to be any consensus for the opposite. > > Yes, I meant both statements. >>As a WG participant I would be Ok with saying that the >>"mail-complaint-to" SHOULD be present. >> >> > >Ah! You mean that those who want to give a (non-mailto) URL SHOULD give a >mail-address as well. Yes, I could live with that. > > Yes. Note, that this SHOULD belongs to USEAGE. And I am strictly against it becoming a MUST. From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Thu Nov 25 13:21:01 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA05452 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 13:21:01 -0500 (EST) 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 iAPIInlQ078764 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 10:18:49 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAPIInOZ078761 for ietf-usefor-skb; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 10:18:49 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from ns1.townisp.com (ns1a.townisp.com [216.195.0.132]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAPIIm9k078534 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 10:18:49 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from blilly@erols.com) Received: from mail.blilly.com (dhcp-0-8-a1-c-fa-f7.cpe.townisp.com [216.49.158.220]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ns1.townisp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EB4F2992B for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 13:18:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.blilly.com with ESMTP id iAPIIhhC031472(8.12.10/8.12.10/mail.blilly.com sendmail.mc.mail 1.18 2004/05/15 07:23:45) ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 13:18:43 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by marty.blilly.com with ESMTP id iAPIIeEV031471(8.12.10/8.12.10/blilly.com submit.mc 1.1 2003/08/26 22:21:33) ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 13:18:42 -0500 From: Bruce Lilly Reply-To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Organization: Bruce Lilly To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <200411201119.32742.blilly@erols.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline X-UID: 147 X-Length: 1736 Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 13:18:38 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200411251318.39303.blilly@erols.com> Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Mon November 22 2004 06:37, Charles Lindsey wrote: > So far as I am aware, it has never been the case > that the IETF expects that all known internet protocols should be presumed > to be available to all internet users, and therefore internet standards do > not normally make such presumptions. Specifying use of a URI does not equate to making any such presumption. > >2. ... -- under some conditions > > a particular group of users might have access to HTTP and NNTP > > (but not SMTP) or to NNTP and SMTP (but not HTTP) or to HTTP > > alone (and it is possible to read and post news via web interfaces). > > Yes, but you know perfectly well that it is unusual for News users not to > have Email capability, Not so; I know of a number of ISPs that block outbound port 25 (SMTP) connections. > whereas lack of access to the web is less uncommon I know of no ISPs that block outbound connections to port 80 (HTTP). From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Thu Nov 25 13:28:59 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA05857 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 13:28:58 -0500 (EST) 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 iAPIRxZx092155 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 10:27:59 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAPIRxsO092152 for ietf-usefor-skb; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 10:27:59 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from ns3.townisp.com (ns3a.townisp.com [216.195.0.136]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAPIRsNA092007 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 10:27:55 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from blilly@erols.com) Received: from mail.blilly.com (dhcp-0-8-a1-c-fa-f7.cpe.townisp.com [216.49.158.220]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ns3.townisp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA9C229908; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 13:27:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.blilly.com with ESMTP id iAPIRsZn031732(8.12.10/8.12.10/mail.blilly.com sendmail.mc.mail 1.18 2004/05/15 07:23:45) ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 13:27:55 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by marty.blilly.com with ESMTP id iAPIRrFl031731(8.12.10/8.12.10/blilly.com submit.mc 1.1 2003/08/26 22:21:33) ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 13:27:54 -0500 From: Bruce Lilly Reply-To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Organization: Bruce Lilly To: Henry Spencer Subject: Re: msg-id Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 13:27:52 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 Cc: Usefor Mailing List References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200411251327.52920.blilly@erols.com> Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thu November 25 2004 09:19, Henry Spencer wrote: > > > Some news software uses any '>' as indicating the end of the > > > message-id. > > > > Even in the form <"\>"@host.UUCP> ? Isn't that just broken ? > > No, it's *different*. And this is an area where news software has always > been different; ">" has always been completely forbidden within news > message IDs. RFC 1036 unfortunately neglected to outlaw the quoting > characters, an omission that son-of-1036 remedied. That is about as incorrect as it's possible to get, Henry. Your claim that there was an omission in RFC 1036 implies that B News 2.11 would incorrectly handle cases such as the above, and that is untrue. The case of B News 2.11 also refutes your claim "news software has always [...] forbidden within news message-IDs". Frank is correct; botched parsing of message-ids (taken from RFC 822 by RFC 850, functionally replacing the A news format A line) is simply a broken implementation. From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Thu Nov 25 14:04:16 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08214 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 14:04:16 -0500 (EST) 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 iAPJ2S1e051814 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 11:02:28 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAPJ2Spi051812 for ietf-usefor-skb; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 11:02:28 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from ns3.townisp.com (ns3a.townisp.com [216.195.0.136]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAPJ2RMS051794 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 11:02:28 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from blilly@erols.com) Received: from mail.blilly.com (dhcp-0-8-a1-c-fa-f7.cpe.townisp.com [216.49.158.220]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ns3.townisp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F24B29908; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 14:02:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.blilly.com with ESMTP id iAPJ2Tmo032724(8.12.10/8.12.10/mail.blilly.com sendmail.mc.mail 1.18 2004/05/15 07:23:45) ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 14:02:29 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by marty.blilly.com with ESMTP id iAPJ2SAo032723(8.12.10/8.12.10/blilly.com submit.mc 1.1 2003/08/26 22:21:33) ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 14:02:29 -0500 From: Bruce Lilly Reply-To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Organization: Bruce Lilly To: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: msg-id Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 14:02:27 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 Cc: ietf-usefor@imc.org References: <200411232008.PAA17357@ietf.org> <41A57095.5AA4@xyzzy.claranet.de> In-Reply-To: <41A57095.5AA4@xyzzy.claranet.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200411251402.27855.blilly@erols.com> Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thu November 25 2004 00:41, Frank Ellermann wrote: > That separate rule is no nonsense, it's a MUST. If you could > express an essential rule in the syntax, why not just do it ? It's possible, but not trivial. There is a proposal to do so in RFC 2822's successor. At one time it was thought that that successor would be RFC 3822, but that obviously didn't happen. It's not clear when the successor will be published. > E.g. old: unstructured = 1*( [FWS] utext ) [FWS] > new: unstructured = *WSP utext *( [FWS] utext ) *WSP No, because that wouldn't permit (legal) Subject: <- SP here foo > > The example given shows the problem. > > > > <"abcd"@example.com> > > <"ab\cd"@example.com> > > are all the same semantically under RFC 2822 > > No chance to treat it literally, three different Message-IDs ? No. They're not different. And canonicalization and proper comparison are inexpensive operations. > Not that I like the idea, in fact I'd prefer an id-left without > no-fold-quote. Who wants NO-WS-CTL in a Message-ID, it's just > weird, it allows BEL and ESC and NAK and SUB (= DOS EOF), I've > never seen that somewhere, it crashes any decent system before > it's injected. It's legal, has been legal for decades, and does not cause any crashes in correct implementations. > I really doubt it, 2822 is way too tolerant, NO-WS-CTL has no > place in a Message-ID, and id-right should be a 2821 "domain" > (i.e. incl. address literals) RFC 2822 id-right does include address literals; the only difference between id-right and domain is that the latter permits CFWS: the msg-id has a similar syntax to angle-addr (identical except that comments and folding white space are not allowed) > It's wrong. The 2822 folks had no idea that Message-IDs are > sacrosanct, our relevant scriptures are STD 11 and RfC 1036: STD 11 = RFC 822. RFC 2822 provides a subset of the RFC 822 syntax for generation and parsing. You have complained about BEL; what about NUL (legal under 822)? From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Thu Nov 25 14:07:21 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08402 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 14:07:21 -0500 (EST) 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 iAPJ6TKF059309 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 11:06:29 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAPJ6TrT059306 for ietf-usefor-skb; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 11:06:29 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from spsystems.net (spsystems.net [216.126.83.115]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAPJ6Srt058928 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 11:06:28 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from henry@spsystems.net) Received: from spsystems.net (henry@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spsystems.net (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id iAPJ6BcC001982; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 14:06:11 -0500 (EST) Received: (from henry@localhost) by spsystems.net (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id iAPJ6ArY001981; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 14:06:10 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 14:06:10 -0500 (EST) From: Henry Spencer To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: msg-id In-Reply-To: <200411251327.52920.blilly@erols.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Thu, 25 Nov 2004, Bruce Lilly wrote: > > > Even in the form <"\>"@host.UUCP> ? Isn't that just broken ? > > No, it's *different*. And this is an area where news software has always > > been different; ">" has always been completely forbidden within news > > message IDs. RFC 1036 unfortunately neglected to outlaw the quoting > > characters, an omission that son-of-1036 remedied. > > That is about as incorrect as it's possible to get, Henry. Your claim > that there was an omission in RFC 1036 implies that B News 2.11 > would incorrectly handle cases such as the above... Bruce, you're about the only one who believes that B2.11 somehow qualifies as either a reference implementation of RFC 1036 -- a ludicrous claim which is trivial to refute -- or a gold-standard implementation that should be used as a guide for standardization. Note that any implementation which accepts "\>" within a message ID is ipso facto in violation of RFC 1036, which defines a news message ID as: "> If B2.11 accepts "\>", it *is* incorrectly handling this case, since by RFC 1036's definition, that is not legal in a news message ID -- the correct handling is to reject an article bearing such a header. By the way, B2.11 doesn't conform to RFC 822 either, since (if I recall correctly) it considers the whole message ID case-insensitive, which is not what RFC 822 calls for. > ...The case of B News 2.11 also refutes your claim "news > software has always [...] forbidden within news message-IDs". I made no such claim; you've spliced together words from two separate statements to put words in my mouth. Henry Spencer henry@spsystems.net From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Thu Nov 25 16:11:56 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA16796 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 16:11:55 -0500 (EST) 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 iAPL9lLU097682 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 13:09:47 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAPL9l3W097676 for ietf-usefor-skb; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 13:09:47 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAPL9iWf097605 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 13:09:45 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CXQs8-0004NN-00 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 22:09:48 +0100 Received: from 212.82.251.25 ([212.82.251.25]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 22:09:48 +0100 Received: from nobody by 212.82.251.25 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 22:09:48 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 21:57:02 +0100 Organization: Lines: 8 Message-ID: <41A6471E.870@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <200411190923.17497.blilly@erols.com> <200411201144.22926.blilly@erols.com> <41A5C24F.3090603@isode.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.82.251.25 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alexey Melnikov wrote: > I just want to note that I would like to be able to have > multiple URIs. If we take the complaint-url= solution, we could simply allow zero or more of these constructs in Injection-Info. Bye, Frank From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Thu Nov 25 16:35:41 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA17973 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 16:35:41 -0500 (EST) 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 iAPLXfnj040420 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 13:33:41 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAPLXfBn040418 for ietf-usefor-skb; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 13:33:41 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAPLXeeC040363 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 13:33:40 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CXRFI-0005d6-00 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 22:33:44 +0100 Received: from 212.82.251.25 ([212.82.251.25]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 22:33:44 +0100 Received: from nobody by 212.82.251.25 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 22:33:44 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Archive Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 22:30:41 +0100 Organization: Lines: 31 Message-ID: <41A64F01.378@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <41A3FE89.5C68@xyzzy.claranet.de> <200411240807.14217.blilly@erols.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.82.251.25 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bruce Lilly wrote: > RFC 2047 (as amended by RFC 2231 and errata) applies only to > human-readable content, viz. unstructured fields, comments, > and RFC [2822] phrases. Yes, I've found it now in RfC 2231. Sneaky, adding the "*" to existing parameters they avoided to define a new MIME version. [Archived-At] > It's not at all clear how that would work on Usenet For something "posted" with Groups.Google it's possible, but it makes more sense for special servers like news.gmane.org (with its own archive) or news.spamcop.net (news2mail gateway with a pipermail archive), i.e. in cases where the Message-ID is not always enough to find old articles. For Usenet it's probably irrelevant, unless users have their own public archive of posted articles. In the case of FAQs it could be as simple as an faqs.org URL or any FAQ homepage. >> It's of no interest for everybody, it's much less relevant >> than any X-Face, and we don't specify a new Face: header. > I tend to agree with Frank here. Fine, that could eliminate filename=, and any 2231 filename*= or folded filename*0= etc. Bye, Frank From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Thu Nov 25 17:16:31 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA20084 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 17:16:31 -0500 (EST) 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 iAPMERrn017846 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 14:14:27 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAPMERBE017833 for ietf-usefor-skb; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 14:14:27 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAPMEMfT017655 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 14:14:23 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CXRsg-0007qJ-00 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 23:14:26 +0100 Received: from 212.82.251.25 ([212.82.251.25]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 23:14:26 +0100 Received: from nobody by 212.82.251.25 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 23:14:26 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: msg-id Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 23:12:44 +0100 Organization: Lines: 46 Message-ID: <41A658DC.4802@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <41A57095.5AA4@xyzzy.claranet.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.82.251.25 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Henry Spencer wrote: > If we must be different -- and we really have no choice about > that, given our installed base -- it's better to be > compatible, by restricting news to the subset where the two > behaviors are indistinguishable. I'd really prefer a variant of your s-o-1036 rules: | local-part = unquoted-word *( "." unquoted-word ) | unquoted-word = 1*unquoted-char | unquoted-char = @,;:\".[]> Maybe that's a bit too restrictive, and it won't avoid all "interesting" cases for the news URL, but it's a clean start for id-left in msg-id. Let local parts in mailbox addresses be as weird as they wish, but not in Message-IDs. > tightening the rules to exclude it seems workable. Yes, please. Adding a note that any legal id-left is always a legal local part, but not v.v. >> What do you expect from a poor mail2news gateway, should it >> try to "fix" these weird constructs ? > As with other areas where we are more restrictive, it must > cope somehow: discard, reject and return, or fix up somehow. "Fixing a Message-ID" sounds too much like GiGo for my taste. > Trying to pretend that news software is just as permissive > as mail software simply doesn't work, because it's *not*. It's also a problem for mail software, my ersatz-newsreader is also my MUA, and my scripts working on simple mbox files, I've no idea what they do with a SUB. A raw BEL is probably funny, but ESC and NAK deserve some honorary security considerations. > RFC 1036 unfortunately neglected to outlaw the quoting > characters, an omission that son-of-1036 remedied. What did the RfC-editor say, do we get it as a historic 4036 ? Bye, Frank From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Thu Nov 25 18:14:30 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA24962 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 18:14:29 -0500 (EST) 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 iAPNDI8o011324 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 15:13:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAPNDIeJ011323 for ietf-usefor-skb; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 15:13:18 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAPNDHcP011286 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 15:13:17 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CXSni-0002Q5-00 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 00:13:22 +0100 Received: from 212.82.251.25 ([212.82.251.25]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 00:13:21 +0100 Received: from nobody by 212.82.251.25 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 00:13:21 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: msg-id Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 00:07:13 +0100 Organization: Lines: 56 Message-ID: <41A665A1.C79@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <200411232008.PAA17357@ietf.org> <41A57095.5AA4@xyzzy.claranet.de> <200411251402.27855.blilly@erols.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.82.251.25 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bruce Lilly wrote: > There is a proposal to do so in RFC 2822's successor. Oops, I didn't know that a 2822bis draft exists, do you have a pointer ? >> E.g. old: unstructured = 1*( [FWS] utext ) [FWS] >> new: unstructured = *WSP utext *( [FWS] utext ) *WSP > No, because that wouldn't permit (legal) > Subject: <- SP here > foo Yes, that was my intention. I wanted it to reflect a 2.2 rule: | The header contents of every header line (including the first | and any that are subsequently folded) MUST contain at least | one non-whitespace character. Your Subject: is invalid, its header content is only a space. If you want to allow this kind of folding - I've no problem with the idea - we have to modify the correspoding MUST. At the moment it's whatever = "header:" SP [FWS] stuff CRLF My fixed version whatever = "header:" SP *WSP stuff CRLF Your idea, maybe whatever = "header:" FWS stuff CRLF If that's really your idea, you have either SP or with an optional CRLF. The real FWS = ([*WSP CRLF] 1*WSP) , not the obs-FWS case in 2822. I'd like it, it's clear and simple. [msg-id with NO-WS-CTL, quote-pairs, and other oddities] > It's legal, has been legal for decades, and does not cause > any crashes in correct implementations. IBTD. At the moment we have something between 1036 and its son in msg-ids, there's no reason to introduce anything more elaborated than IPvX address literals as id-right, and we can copy the syntax from 2821 (not 2822, I really meant 2821 here) > You have complained about BEL; what about NUL (legal under > 822)? NUL is no problem, my MUA simply crashes and I restart it (no joke, fact). RfC 1036 restricted this weirdness at least to: | any string of printing ASCII characters, not including "<" | (left angle bracket), ">" (right angle bracket), or "@" NO-WS-CTL is no printing ASCII character, whatever you do. Bye, Frank From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Thu Nov 25 20:45:39 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA05700 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 20:45:39 -0500 (EST) 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 iAQ1h5sc090623 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 17:43:06 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAQ1h5IU090607 for ietf-usefor-skb; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 17:43:05 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from spsystems.net (spsystems.net [216.126.83.115]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAQ1h4pR090217 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 17:43:04 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from henry@spsystems.net) Received: from spsystems.net (henry@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spsystems.net (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id iAQ1gkcC005183; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 20:42:46 -0500 (EST) Received: (from henry@localhost) by spsystems.net (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id iAQ1gk2L005182; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 20:42:46 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 20:42:46 -0500 (EST) From: Henry Spencer To: Usefor Mailing List Subject: Re: msg-id In-Reply-To: <41A658DC.4802@xyzzy.claranet.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Thu, 25 Nov 2004, Frank Ellermann wrote: > What did the RfC-editor say, do we get it as a historic 4036 ? Publication as Historic is possible but extremely unusual; they'd prefer it as Informational, with a preface explaining its history and status. Which is fine by me; I've just been slow about getting it tidied up for submission. Henry Spencer henry@spsystems.net From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Thu Nov 25 21:44:21 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA10881 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 21:44:21 -0500 (EST) 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 iAQ2gOdu080062 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 18:42:25 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAQ2gOsG080059 for ietf-usefor-skb; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 18:42:24 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAQ2gL1f079926 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 18:42:22 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CXW43-00042t-00 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 03:42:27 +0100 Received: from 212.82.251.25 ([212.82.251.25]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 03:42:27 +0100 Received: from nobody by 212.82.251.25 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 03:42:27 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: msg-id Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 03:42:00 +0100 Organization: Lines: 11 Message-ID: <41A697F8.49AE@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <41A658DC.4802@xyzzy.claranet.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.82.251.25 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Henry Spencer wrote: > I've just been slow about getting it tidied up for submission. Don't try the XML-ification, that could be a pain. And I'd really like to see it as RfC, at least Bruce then can't tell me that CTL in a Message-ID "worked for decades". ;-) OTOH I couldn't confuse him with my Subject: cmsg anymore, we would all win. Bye, Frank From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Thu Nov 25 21:56:58 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA12048 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 21:56:57 -0500 (EST) 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 iAQ2tjPs091278 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 18:55:45 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAQ2tjbn091277 for ietf-usefor-skb; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 18:55:45 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAQ2tidE091235 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 18:55:44 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CXWH0-0004cc-00 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 03:55:50 +0100 Received: from 212.82.251.25 ([212.82.251.25]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 03:55:50 +0100 Received: from nobody by 212.82.251.25 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 03:55:50 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 03:55:00 +0100 Organization: Lines: 23 Message-ID: <41A69B04.5F93@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <200411201119.32742.blilly@erols.com> <200411251318.39303.blilly@erols.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.82.251.25 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bruce Lilly wrote: > I know of a number of ISPs that block outbound port 25 > (SMTP) connections. Actually a dubious idea, a zombie can still cause harm using all other ports. It's a solution of [censored] organizations like Spamcast not willing to pay a working abuse management. >> whereas lack of access to the web is less uncommon > I know of no ISPs that block outbound connections to port 80 > (HTTP). It's about users reading their news while they are offline. That's no UUCP trick, one user reported that he polls his news during the night, and then reads and answers it on his laptop on the way to resp. from his office (offline, in a train). Of course he could bookmark interesting links, but it's not the same as online. Bye, Frank From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Fri Nov 26 09:23:23 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA10704 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 09:23:23 -0500 (EST) 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 iAQEKh9o024156 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 06:20:43 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAQEKg26024155 for ietf-usefor-skb; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 06:20:43 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAQEKdnQ024147 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 06:20:40 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from alexey.melnikov-usefor@isode.com) Received: from [172.16.0.116] (shiny.isode.com [62.3.217.250]) by rufus.isode.com via TCP (internal) with ESMTPA; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 14:20:37 +0000 Message-ID: <41A73BB3.7060307@isode.com> Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 14:20:35 +0000 From: Alexey Melnikov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Frank Ellermann CC: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <200411190923.17497.blilly@erols.com> <200411201144.22926.blilly@erols.com> <41A5C24F.3090603@isode.com> <41A6471E.870@xyzzy.claranet.de> In-Reply-To: <41A6471E.870@xyzzy.claranet.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Frank Ellermann wrote: >Alexey Melnikov wrote: > > >>I just want to note that I would like to be able to have >>multiple URIs. >> >> > >If we take the complaint-url= solution, we could simply allow >zero or more of these constructs in Injection-Info. > > Exactly. From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Fri Nov 26 11:07:52 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA23437 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 11:07:52 -0500 (EST) 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 iAQG6DeW054686 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 08:06:13 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAQG6DF5054600 for ietf-usefor-skb; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 08:06:13 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from ns5.townisp.com (ns5a.townisp.com [216.195.0.140]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAQG6BkI054559 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 08:06:11 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from blilly@erols.com) Received: from mail.blilly.com (dhcp-0-8-a1-c-fa-f7.cpe.townisp.com [216.49.158.220]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ns5.townisp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CDA629911; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 11:06:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.blilly.com with ESMTP id iAQG6Cc4005694(8.12.10/8.12.10/mail.blilly.com sendmail.mc.mail 1.18 2004/05/15 07:23:45) ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 11:06:12 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by marty.blilly.com with ESMTP id iAQG6Bvn005693(8.12.10/8.12.10/blilly.com submit.mc 1.1 2003/08/26 22:21:33) ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 11:06:12 -0500 From: Bruce Lilly Reply-To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Organization: Bruce Lilly To: Alexey Melnikov Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 11:06:09 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 Cc: ietf-usefor@imc.org References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <41A6471E.870@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41A73BB3.7060307@isode.com> In-Reply-To: <41A73BB3.7060307@isode.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200411261106.09430.blilly@erols.com> Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Fri November 26 2004 09:20, Alexey Melnikov wrote: > > Frank Ellermann wrote: > > >Alexey Melnikov wrote: > > > > > >>I just want to note that I would like to be able to have > >>multiple URIs. > >> > >> > > > >If we take the complaint-url= solution, we could simply allow > >zero or more of these constructs in Injection-Info. > > > > > Exactly. If one is going to use MIME-like parameters, that's exactly wrong; one may not have multiple parameters with the same attribute name. Syntax similar to that of a Received field, however, could accommodate multiple instances (as is the case for the Received field "with" component). From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Fri Nov 26 12:14:14 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA00019 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 12:14:14 -0500 (EST) 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 iAQHCY6G067119 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 09:12:34 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAQHCYA7067104 for ietf-usefor-skb; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 09:12:34 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp800.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp800.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.142]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id iAQHCWm8066858 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 09:12:32 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-76-118.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.76.118 with poptime) by smtp800.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 26 Nov 2004 17:12:29 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id iAQCCQG13639 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 12:12:26 GMT To: LIST: ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20333 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: Is this a STraw Poll? (was Standardize Complaints-To as deployed) Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <87oeicrzj4.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87r7n4rzln.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <9KhLNobXw-B@khms.westfalen.de> <4198F210.1049@xyzzy.claranet.de> <419CD6A4.6010402@isode.com> <41A5D0CB.3020508@isode.com> Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 11:58:24 GMT Lines: 57 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <41A5D0CB.3020508@isode.com> Alexey Melnikov writes: >Charles Lindsey wrote: >>Alexey has given his preference order as #2, #1, #3, #4. >> >>Does this mean we are all supposed to express out preference order now? If >>so, then my order is #3, #1, (|), #2, #4 >> >> >No, I didn't start a straw poll, but people can express their opinion at >any time (opinion can be sent directly to me, if you prefer). >If we all just happen to magically agree, we can move on to more >interesting topics. Indeed, but there are still several people whose position on some of the options is not clear. I think the 4 options I gave still cover the viable possibilities (though if people want to support Bruce's #5, #6, #7 or #8 then let them speak up). So far, only three people have ranked them in order, and I think it would be helpful if more people did so. Even when we have a front runner, there would still be details to fix up (e.g. the names to be used, what to do about multiple addresses/URLs, etc). >>>I would prefer #2, followed by #1 and #3. >>> >>> >>>As a chair I would note that I see no consensus to use mail-complaint-to >>>over complaints-url. I think the question is whether to provide both of them initially. >> >>Ah! You mean that those who want to give a (non-mailto) URL SHOULD give a >>mail-address as well. Yes, I could live with that. >> >> >Yes. >Note, that this SHOULD belongs to USEAGE. Which is where we disagree. >And I am strictly against it becoming a MUST. Indeed. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Fri Nov 26 12:14:16 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA00044 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 12:14:15 -0500 (EST) 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 iAQHCW2R067024 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 09:12:32 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAQHCWcq067023 for ietf-usefor-skb; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 09:12:32 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp800.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp800.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.142]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id iAQHCVBO066834 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 09:12:31 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-76-118.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.76.118 with poptime) by smtp800.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 26 Nov 2004 17:12:28 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id iAQCCNA13625 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 12:12:23 GMT To: LIST: ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20330 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <417414F5.6020500@isode.com> <87sm7t6n4e.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <41877F8C.7000402@isode.com> <4187E75F.1099@xyzzy.claranet.de> <4188C9F0.6020905@isode.com> <4188CAD0.1080902@isode.com> <41895E2E.5C57@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87sm7qwnse.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <418A41B4.7498@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87u0s5oa3c.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <418B6F21.5A5D@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87oeicrzj4.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87r7n4rzln.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <41A5CCF3.4020601@isode.com> Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 11:28:52 GMT Lines: 35 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <41A5CCF3.4020601@isode.com> Alexey Melnikov writes: >Russ Allbery wrote: >>Charles Lindsey writes: >> >> >>>If we are agreed that it is a Bad Thing for ISPs to be requiring users >>>to use web forms for abuse complaints (and I think we are, and the >>>consensus on the news.net-abuse.* groups supports us), >>> >>> >One can't force the market. People have tried to do that many times, but >I don't remember any successful attempt. Indeed, but if the market is not pressing too hard in the direction you don't want it to go, then it is folly to encourage it in that direction by providing special features for it. That is the beauty of doing it via Injection-Info. You give them mail-copies-to as a parameter. Then, if the market really does want to go the URL way, it will demand another parameter (or start using x-url-complaints regardless). And at that point (if it happens), you add it as an extension. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Fri Nov 26 12:14:17 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA00062 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 12:14:16 -0500 (EST) 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 iAQHCUAC066914 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 09:12:30 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAQHCU8d066913 for ietf-usefor-skb; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 09:12:30 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp800.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp800.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.142]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id iAQHCTEL066746 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 09:12:29 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-76-118.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.76.118 with poptime) by smtp800.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 26 Nov 2004 17:12:26 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id iAQCCPm13634 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 12:12:25 GMT To: LIST: ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20332 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <7468147AEE316B41B3B55152959CE218129253@dul1wnexm05.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <200411201126.22545.blilly@erols.com> <41A5CFD3.2040906@isode.com> Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 11:48:46 GMT Lines: 27 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <41A5CFD3.2040906@isode.com> Alexey Melnikov writes: >>Regarding "straw polls", my remarks about voting still largely apply; >>we need to agree on methods, ensure that *all* points of view are >>represented *fairly*, etc. >> >> >My personal opinion on "straw polls" is that >1). they help to see if people has changed their mind during recent >discussions >2). they are useful to make a decision when there is no strong technical >argument(s) to choose one solution over another. Also when, after a long discussion, it is not clear who is still supporting what, especially if several new options have been introduced along the way. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Fri Nov 26 12:14:33 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA00091 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 12:14:33 -0500 (EST) 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 iAQHCYVj067122 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 09:12:34 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAQHCYFx067111 for ietf-usefor-skb; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 09:12:34 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp800.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp800.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.142]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id iAQHCXWU066868 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 09:12:33 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-76-118.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.76.118 with poptime) by smtp800.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 26 Nov 2004 17:12:30 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id iAQHCAD15510 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 17:12:10 GMT To: LIST: ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20334 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: msg-id Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <200411232008.PAA17357@ietf.org> <41A57095.5AA4@xyzzy.claranet.de> <200411251402.27855.blilly@erols.com> Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 14:56:20 GMT Lines: 90 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <200411251402.27855.blilly@erols.com> Bruce Lilly writes: >On Thu November 25 2004 00:41, Frank Ellermann wrote: >> > The example given shows the problem. >> > >> > <"abcd"@example.com> >> > <"ab\cd"@example.com> >> > are all the same semantically under RFC 2822 >> >> No chance to treat it literally, three different Message-IDs ? >No. They're not different. And canonicalization and >proper comparison are inexpensive operations. As far as Netnews is concerned, they most certainly are (or would be) different. Canonicalization might be possible at posting or injecting agents (but agents that generate nessage-ids could just as easily generate them in the proper form in the first place). But "proper comparison", as you call it, is most certainly _not_ inexpensive - certainly not on the scale at which it has to be performed within Netnews software, where an agent must be able to determine, in hardly any time at all, whether a given message-id is already present within a history file which will typically have many millions of entries. And make that test with maybe a million new message-ids every day, Yes, it can be (and is) speeded up by various hashing techniques, but it is still the case that one cannot afford anything more than a byte-by-byte test for equality. All the people on this list who actually write news software and who have spoken on this matter are quite adamant about that. >> Not that I like the idea, in fact I'd prefer an id-left without >> no-fold-quote. Who wants NO-WS-CTL in a Message-ID, it's just >> weird, it allows BEL and ESC and NAK and SUB (= DOS EOF), I've >> never seen that somewhere, it crashes any decent system before >> it's injected. >It's legal, has been legal for decades, and does not cause >any crashes in correct implementations. It is legal, maybe, but it is stupid. Ever tried reading a NO-WS-CTL over the telephone? The requirements for a unique message identifier are: 1. That it can safely be regarded as a sequence of bytes which can be compared for simple equality, and with a trivially determined endpoint. From that POV, there need be no further restrictions on what characters it may contain, so far as the operation of the basic protocol is concerned. 2. It MUST be unique, or with astronomical probabilities against accidental construction of duplicates. 3. It SHOULD be human readable over the telephone. 4. It MAY contain information useful to humans (hence the excellent convention of using a domain name or IP address in the id-right). 5. It SHOULD NOT be cluttered with unnecessary conventions requiring certain characters to be quoted or within quoted-strings. The definition in RFC 2822 fails on almost every one of those tests. So what are the options within Netnews? A. The RFC 2822 convention as it stands is unacceptable. B. We could make the minimum change (restriction) that will ensure that the Netnews protocols work. C. We could also remove some of the worse stupidities, like NO-WS-CTL, no-fold-literals which go further than IPv[46] addresses, or than RFC 2821, and any special meanings for '"' and '\'. The current drafts have always taken approach B. Frank wants to bring in some of C. It would indeed be technically sensible to do so, but it would probably be politically unwise. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Fri Nov 26 13:00:58 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA00020 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 12:14:14 -0500 (EST) 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 iAQHCVda066966 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 09:12:31 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAQHCVl8066955 for ietf-usefor-skb; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 09:12:31 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp800.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp800.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.142]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id iAQHCTMU066773 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 09:12:30 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-76-118.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.76.118 with poptime) by smtp800.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 26 Nov 2004 17:12:27 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id iAQCCOi13630 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 12:12:24 GMT To: LIST: ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20331 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <87sm7qwnse.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <200411201119.32742.blilly@erols.com> <41A5CE50.8020307@isode.com> Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 11:45:56 GMT Lines: 28 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <41A5CE50.8020307@isode.com> Alexey Melnikov writes: >Maybe there is a need in "abuse web form considered harmful" document. >But this is generally not an argument against URLs. Our draft has always said that (MUST for injectors, SHOULD for some others) that the mail addresses news@agent and usenet@agent are to be available, in conformity with RFC 2142, plus abuse@agent for an agent offering its services to the general public. That has been a long standing tradition. Complaints-To and the like is really provided only for where the site wants to use something other than 'abuse' (e.g. 'news-abuse' as distinct from 'mail-abuse'), or where the MX record for its centralized abuse department is different from the FQDN it puts in the Path header. Incidentally, one of the advantages of a Complaints-To header over a parameter of Injection-Info is that it would be suitable for use in Emails, if the email community wants to use it. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Fri Nov 26 21:08:27 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA19153 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 21:08:26 -0500 (EST) 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 iAR26J3r084380 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 18:06:19 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAR26JSP084378 for ietf-usefor-skb; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 18:06:19 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAR26GWg084063 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 18:06:17 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CXrya-0008D1-00 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 03:06:16 +0100 Received: from 212.82.251.23 ([212.82.251.23]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 03:06:15 +0100 Received: from nobody by 212.82.251.23 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 03:06:15 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 03:05:42 +0100 Organization: Lines: 12 Message-ID: <41A7E0F6.7590@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <41A6471E.870@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41A73BB3.7060307@isode.com> <200411261106.09430.blilly@erols.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.82.251.23 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bruce Lilly wrote: > If one is going to use MIME-like parameters, that's exactly > wrong; one may not have multiple parameters with the same > attribute name. Where does it say so ? I really tried to check this before I posted here (it's an "obvious" problem ;-) and found no rule against it... within 5 minutes Bye, Frank From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Fri Nov 26 21:14:37 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA19637 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 21:14:37 -0500 (EST) 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 iAR2D1FK095639 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 18:13:01 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAR2D1hh095636 for ietf-usefor-skb; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 18:13:01 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAR2CwAq095455 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 18:12:58 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CXs58-0000Cf-00 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 03:13:02 +0100 Received: from 212.82.251.23 ([212.82.251.23]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 03:13:02 +0100 Received: from nobody by 212.82.251.23 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 03:13:02 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 03:12:33 +0100 Organization: Lines: 11 Message-ID: <41A7E291.6B8@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <87sm7qwnse.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <200411201119.32742.blilly@erols.com> <41A5CE50.8020307@isode.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.82.251.23 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Charles Lindsey wrote: > one of the advantages of a Complaints-To header over a > parameter of Injection-Info is that it would be suitable > for use in Emails, if the email community wants to use it. Good point, but OTOH it's easier to get rid of _one_ bogus Injection-Info than to check multiple headers for forgeries. Bye, Frank From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Fri Nov 26 21:51:30 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA21984 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 21:51:29 -0500 (EST) 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 iAR2nkTm018891 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 18:49:46 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAR2nkbk018890 for ietf-usefor-skb; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 18:49:46 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAR2nVfn018852 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 18:49:45 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CXseX-0002ff-00 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 03:49:37 +0100 Received: from 212.82.251.23 ([212.82.251.23]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 03:49:37 +0100 Received: from nobody by 212.82.251.23 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 03:49:37 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: msg-id Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 03:46:53 +0100 Organization: Lines: 57 Message-ID: <41A7EA9D.641C@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <200411232008.PAA17357@ietf.org> <41A57095.5AA4@xyzzy.claranet.de> <200411251402.27855.blilly@erols.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.82.251.23 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Charles Lindsey wrote: > The requirements for a unique message identifier are: > 1. That it can safely be regarded as a sequence of bytes > which can be compared for simple equality ACK. We could discuss cases-insensitive domains. > 2. It MUST be unique, or with astronomical probabilities > against accidental construction of duplicates. No qualifier, no MD5 hacks, unique forever. It's the problem of the domain owner and his software how they manage this, but they MUST NOT disturb other domains with their "solutions". > 3. It SHOULD be human readable over the telephone. Is that about the effects of NAK or DLE in certain protocols ? It MUST be printable us-ascii, no nonsense. > 4. It MAY contain information useful to humans (hence the > excellent convention of using a domain name or IP address in > the id-right. This "convention" is a MUST, otherwise you can't guarantee the uniqueness. > 5. It SHOULD NOT be cluttered with unnecessary conventions > requiring certain characters to be quoted or within > quoted-strings. ACK, although I tend to MUST NOT here. You forgot the new 6: It SHOULD work in a news URL without too much ado. Anything like news:%2F%1B[2J%2F@invalid is madness. > A. The RFC 2822 convention as it stands is unacceptable. That's putting it very mildly. > B. We could make the minimum change (restriction) that will > ensure that the Netnews protocols work. That's what you did, and I'm very unhapy with the result. You probably got it right, but nobody else will. > Frank wants to bring in some of C. It would indeed be > technically sensible to do so, but it would probably be > politically unwise. Why's that the case ? We're supposed to get it right, we're not supposed to copy all bugs from a memo which is already obsolete, if I got Bruce's remarks about a new 2822bis right. Bye, Frank From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Fri Nov 26 22:14:47 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA23977 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 22:14:46 -0500 (EST) 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 iAR3DGLr056462 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 19:13:16 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAR3DG3U056461 for ietf-usefor-skb; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 19:13:16 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from ns3.townisp.com (ns3a.townisp.com [216.195.0.136]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAR3DFJo056422 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 19:13:15 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from blilly@erols.com) Received: from mail.blilly.com (dhcp-0-8-a1-c-fa-f7.cpe.townisp.com [216.49.158.220]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ns3.townisp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3496129912; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 22:13:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.blilly.com with ESMTP id iAR3DJ6X024705(8.12.10/8.12.10/mail.blilly.com sendmail.mc.mail 1.18 2004/05/15 07:23:45) ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 22:13:20 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by marty.blilly.com with ESMTP id iAR3DIx4024704(8.12.10/8.12.10/blilly.com submit.mc 1.1 2003/08/26 22:21:33) ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 22:13:19 -0500 From: Bruce Lilly Reply-To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Organization: Bruce Lilly To: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 22:13:17 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 Cc: ietf-usefor@imc.org References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <200411261106.09430.blilly@erols.com> <41A7E0F6.7590@xyzzy.claranet.de> In-Reply-To: <41A7E0F6.7590@xyzzy.claranet.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200411262213.17632.blilly@erols.com> Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Fri November 26 2004 21:05, Frank Ellermann wrote: > > Bruce Lilly wrote: > > > If one is going to use MIME-like parameters, that's exactly > > wrong; one may not have multiple parameters with the same > > attribute name. > > Where does it say so ? I really tried to check this before I > posted here (it's an "obvious" problem ;-) and found no rule > against it... within 5 minutes A moment's thought should convince you that given two parameters with the same attribute name foo, you will be unable to reassemble fragments: Content-Type: text/plain ; foo*0=x ; foo*2=z ; foo*0=a ; foo*1=y ; foo*2=c ; foo*1=b Clearly that isn't practical, and the intent is certainly that there can only be one parameter with a given attribute name per field. This was discussed not so long ago on the ietf-822 mailing list; see http://www.imc.org/ietf-822/mail-archive/msg04115.html for more. From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Sat Nov 27 00:02:57 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA01493 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 00:02:57 -0500 (EST) 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 iAR4vsVZ033631 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 20:57:54 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAR4vseV033629 for ietf-usefor-skb; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 20:57:54 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAR4vnrU033308 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 20:57:50 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CXuec-0000iw-00 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 05:57:50 +0100 Received: from 212.82.251.23 ([212.82.251.23]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 05:57:50 +0100 Received: from nobody by 212.82.251.23 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 05:57:50 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Does 2231 break MIME 1.0? (was: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed?) Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 05:52:45 +0100 Organization: Lines: 26 Message-ID: <41A8081D.611D@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <200411261106.09430.blilly@erols.com> <41A7E0F6.7590@xyzzy.claranet.de> <200411262213.17632.blilly@erols.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.82.251.23 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bruce Lilly wrote: > A moment's thought should convince you that given two > parameters with the same attribute name foo, you will > be unable to reassemble fragments: > Content-Type: text/plain ; foo*0=x ; foo*2=z ; foo*0=a ; > foo*1=y ; foo*2=c ; foo*1=b Oops, RfC 2231 breaks MIME 1.0, it's not only obscure, it's dead (for this version of MIME). > Clearly that isn't practical Yes. Somehow they "forgot" to mention this "minor detail" in RfC 2231. But you caught them red-handed. > http://www.imc.org/ietf-822/mail-archive/msg04115.html The magic=on ; magic=off discussion, I recall it vaguely. What next, submit a 2231bis with a new MIME version, where all parameters must be unique per header-field ? Bye, Frank From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Sat Nov 27 08:02:10 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA16597 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 08:02:10 -0500 (EST) 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 iARCxwRk021558 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 04:59:58 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iARCxw3p021555 for ietf-usefor-skb; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 04:59:58 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from ns4.townisp.com (ns4a.townisp.com [216.195.0.138]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iARCxvvH021303 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 04:59:58 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from blilly@erols.com) Received: from mail.blilly.com (dhcp-0-8-a1-c-fa-f7.cpe.townisp.com [216.49.158.220]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ns4.townisp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5BD829926; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 07:59:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.blilly.com with ESMTP id iARCxpUo004084(8.12.10/8.12.10/mail.blilly.com sendmail.mc.mail 1.18 2004/05/15 07:23:45) ; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 07:59:51 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by marty.blilly.com with ESMTP id iARCxnt6004083(8.12.10/8.12.10/blilly.com submit.mc 1.1 2003/08/26 22:21:33) ; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 07:59:50 -0500 From: Bruce Lilly Reply-To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Organization: Bruce Lilly To: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Does 2231 break MIME 1.0? (was: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed?) Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 07:59:47 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 Cc: ietf-usefor@imc.org References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <200411262213.17632.blilly@erols.com> <41A8081D.611D@xyzzy.claranet.de> In-Reply-To: <41A8081D.611D@xyzzy.claranet.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200411270759.47926.blilly@erols.com> Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Fri November 26 2004 23:52, Frank Ellermann wrote: > Oops, RfC 2231 breaks MIME 1.0, No, it's part of MIME; the first "word" in its title is "MIME". > What next, submit a 2231bis with a new MIME version, > where all parameters must be unique per header-field ? Ned said that he intends to revise the MIME documents, and there are drafts of some parts. He has said that the issue of uniqueness will be addressed. A new MIME version number is unlikely. From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Sat Nov 27 14:17:32 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA15372 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 14:17:31 -0500 (EST) 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 iARJFc10083489 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 11:15:38 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iARJFcBe083488 for ietf-usefor-skb; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 11:15:38 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [209.55.107.55]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iARJFbDo083112 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 11:15:37 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from ned.freed@mrochek.com) Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01LHKCWTZQJ400005R@mauve.mrochek.com> for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 11:15:25 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 11:08:55 -0800 (PST) From: ned.freed@mrochek.com Subject: Re: Does 2231 break MIME 1.0? (was: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed?) In-reply-to: "Your message dated Sat, 27 Nov 2004 07:59:47 -0500" <200411270759.47926.blilly@erols.com> To: Bruce Lilly Cc: Frank Ellermann , ietf-usefor@imc.org Message-id: <01LHQ6PD5QTO00005R@mauve.mrochek.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <200411262213.17632.blilly@erols.com> <41A8081D.611D@xyzzy.claranet.de> <200411270759.47926.blilly@erols.com> Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT > On Fri November 26 2004 23:52, Frank Ellermann wrote: > > Oops, RfC 2231 breaks MIME 1.0, > No, it's part of MIME; the first "word" in its title is "MIME". Indeed. > > What next, submit a 2231bis with a new MIME version, > > where all parameters must be unique per header-field ? > Ned said that he intends to revise the MIME documents, > and there are drafts of some parts. He has said that the > issue of uniqueness will be addressed. Yep. The intent was always that parameters be unique. Things that are obvious to everyone involved at the time can sometimes slip through the cracks and not get covered in the specification. > A new MIME version number is unlikely. Yes, well, we botched the versioning thing rather badly, so we're pretty much stuck with 1.0 forever. Ned P.S. If 2231 ever gets revised adding something along the lines of "SHOULD NOT use these encodings unnecessarily" seems like a good idea too. Or maybe even make it a MUST NOT... From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Sat Nov 27 14:42:50 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA17219 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 14:42:46 -0500 (EST) 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 iARJfiqx021076 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 11:41:44 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iARJfiqm021073 for ietf-usefor-skb; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 11:41:44 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from spsystems.net (spsystems.net [216.126.83.115]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iARJfhq4020800 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 11:41:43 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from henry@spsystems.net) Received: from spsystems.net (henry@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spsystems.net (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id iARJfPcC003313; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 14:41:25 -0500 (EST) Received: (from henry@localhost) by spsystems.net (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id iARJfPls003312; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 14:41:25 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 14:41:24 -0500 (EST) From: Henry Spencer To: Usefor Mailing List Subject: Re: msg-id In-Reply-To: <41A7EA9D.641C@xyzzy.claranet.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Sat, 27 Nov 2004, Frank Ellermann wrote: > > 2. It MUST be unique, or with astronomical probabilities > > against accidental construction of duplicates. > > No qualifier, no MD5 hacks, unique forever. It's the problem > of the domain owner and his software how they manage this... Concur. There is just no reason to add weasel words that permit duplicates, given that methods for guaranteed uniqueness are well known and not difficult to implement. If unusual situations, e.g. multi-point gatewaying problems, might occasionally involve compromising on this, that is best treated as a difficult-to-fix-and-not-too-harmful bug in that software, not as something the standard should bless. Henry Spencer henry@spsystems.net From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Sat Nov 27 21:01:09 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA09334 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 21:01:09 -0500 (EST) 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 iAS1vNtr053198 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 17:57:23 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAS1vNPv053197 for ietf-usefor-skb; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 17:57:23 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAS1vJRC052875 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 17:57:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CYEJG-00027J-00 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 02:57:06 +0100 Received: from 213.191.80.203 ([213.191.80.203]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 02:57:06 +0100 Received: from nobody by 213.191.80.203 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 02:57:06 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Does 2231 break MIME 1.0? Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 02:55:27 +0100 Organization: Lines: 20 Message-ID: <41A9300F.7789@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <200411262213.17632.blilly@erols.com> <41A8081D.611D@xyzzy.claranet.de> <200411270759.47926.blilly@erols.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.191.80.203 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bruce Lilly wrote: > it's part of MIME; the first "word" in its title is "MIME". But the seventh word is "extensions", and your example showed that some of these *-hacks are not compatible with non-unique MIME 1.0 parameters. It was added as an afterthoght, and it doesn't work for this case. > A new MIME version number is unlikely. Removing the general *-folding could solve the problem, or restricting it to parameters where it's explicitly allowed and potentially necessary (e.g. filename= but not for URIs). Something like boundary*= / boundary*0= / boundary*0*= could be really dangerous, if it's (ab)used to bypass spam filters. Bye, Frank From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Sat Nov 27 21:38:48 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA11449 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 21:38:47 -0500 (EST) 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 iAS2axTq016229 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 18:36:59 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAS2axUB016228 for ietf-usefor-skb; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 18:36:59 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAS2avZO016184 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 18:36:58 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CYEvv-0004DB-00 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 03:37:03 +0100 Received: from 213.191.80.203 ([213.191.80.203]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 03:37:03 +0100 Received: from nobody by 213.191.80.203 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 03:37:03 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Does 2231 break MIME 1.0? Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 03:34:47 +0100 Organization: Lines: 39 Message-ID: <41A93947.1CF5@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <200411262213.17632.blilly@erols.com> <41A8081D.611D@xyzzy.claranet.de> <200411270759.47926.blilly@erols.com> <01LHQ6PD5QTO00005R@mauve.mrochek.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org Cc: ned.freed@mrochek.com X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.191.80.203 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ned.freed@mrochek.com wrote: >> the first "word" in its title is "MIME". > Indeed. It's incompatible with non-unique parameters, it works only for a proper subset of legal MIME - as far as it's implemented correctly anywhere, I've heard that Opera tried this, and that others try to use encoded words where it's definitely wrong. >> the issue of uniqueness will be addressed. > Yep. The intent was always that parameters be unique. In the case discussed here non-unique parameters make sense. Of course we could avoid it somehow, but it's more "KISS" with zero or more complaints-url= parameters. Same reasoning as in Martin's proposed Archived-At:, where he came to the conclusion that one URI per Archived-At: is the way to go (plus allowing more than one of these header fields). > we botched the versioning thing rather badly, so we're pretty > much stuck with 1.0 forever. Now here's a reason to move the worst *-hacks to a new version, and then forget it for the next decades, until the whole world uses Unicode filesystems, or whatever they'll do in 2050. > If 2231 ever gets revised adding something along the lines of > "SHOULD NOT use these encodings unnecessarily" seems like a > good idea too. Or maybe even make it a MUST NOT... You could make it a "MUST NOT ... unless explicitly allowed for the affected parameter". Bruce has demonstrated that it cannot be allowed for non-unique parameters, and it would be an awful security loophole for boundary= Bye, Frank From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Sat Nov 27 22:15:56 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA13556 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 22:15:55 -0500 (EST) 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 iAS3E5Ok075517 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 19:14:05 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAS3E5HZ075514 for ietf-usefor-skb; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 19:14:05 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from ns2.townisp.com (ns2a.townisp.com [216.195.0.134]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAS3E5Ss075315 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 19:14:05 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from blilly@erols.com) Received: from mail.blilly.com (dhcp-0-8-a1-c-fa-f7.cpe.townisp.com [216.49.158.220]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ns2.townisp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1AC62990A; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 22:14:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.blilly.com with ESMTP id iAS3E3ro019810(8.12.10/8.12.10/mail.blilly.com sendmail.mc.mail 1.18 2004/05/15 07:23:45) ; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 22:14:03 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by marty.blilly.com with ESMTP id iAS3E1mj019808(8.12.10/8.12.10/blilly.com submit.mc 1.1 2003/08/26 22:21:33) ; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 22:14:03 -0500 From: Bruce Lilly Reply-To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Organization: Bruce Lilly To: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Does 2231 break MIME 1.0? Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 22:13:58 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 Cc: ietf-usefor@imc.org References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <200411270759.47926.blilly@erols.com> <41A9300F.7789@xyzzy.claranet.de> In-Reply-To: <41A9300F.7789@xyzzy.claranet.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200411272213.59057.blilly@erols.com> Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Sat November 27 2004 20:55, Frank Ellermann wrote: > > Bruce Lilly wrote: > > > it's part of MIME; the first "word" in its title is "MIME". > > But the seventh word is "extensions", and your example showed > that some of these *-hacks are not compatible with non-unique > MIME 1.0 parameters. It was added as an afterthoght, and it > doesn't work for this case. There simply aren't any cases where a Content-Type or Content-Disposition field needs multiple parameters with the same attribute name. There are cases where long parameters need to be split to avoid problems. (And there are cases where charset or language need to be indicated). > > A new MIME version number is unlikely. > > Removing the general *-folding could solve the problem That's not going to do anything about the version number problems. > restricting it to parameters where it's explicitly allowed > and potentially necessary (e.g. filename= but not for URIs). URIs can be quite long; they're a good example of why continuation parameters are useful (and the continuation example in RFC 2231 *is* a URI). And charset and language tags will also be necessary for the IRI crowd. > Something like boundary*= / boundary*0= / boundary*0*= could > be really dangerous, if it's (ab)used to bypass spam filters. Sorry, no. Any process that needs to examine MIME body parts needs to do so properly, and that includes handling RFC 2231 continuation parameters. Vendors who cut corners by half-assed approaches to MIME messages have already caused problems: http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/836088 And that's (well) after RFC 1344 specifically mentioned gateway issues related to MIME. From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Sat Nov 27 22:39:14 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA15147 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 22:39:13 -0500 (EST) 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 iAS3c9A9013157 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 19:38:09 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAS3c9wE013156 for ietf-usefor-skb; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 19:38:09 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from ns2.townisp.com (ns2a.townisp.com [216.195.0.134]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAS3c88L013126 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 19:38:08 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from blilly@erols.com) Received: from mail.blilly.com (dhcp-0-8-a1-c-fa-f7.cpe.townisp.com [216.49.158.220]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ns2.townisp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFF0229920; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 22:38:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.blilly.com with ESMTP id iAS3cDES020130(8.12.10/8.12.10/mail.blilly.com sendmail.mc.mail 1.18 2004/05/15 07:23:45) ; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 22:38:13 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by marty.blilly.com with ESMTP id iAS3cBMh020129(8.12.10/8.12.10/blilly.com submit.mc 1.1 2003/08/26 22:21:33) ; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 22:38:12 -0500 From: Bruce Lilly Reply-To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Organization: Bruce Lilly To: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Does 2231 break MIME 1.0? Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 22:38:09 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 Cc: ietf-usefor@imc.org, ned.freed@mrochek.com References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <01LHQ6PD5QTO00005R@mauve.mrochek.com> <41A93947.1CF5@xyzzy.claranet.de> In-Reply-To: <41A93947.1CF5@xyzzy.claranet.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200411272238.10271.blilly@erols.com> Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Sat November 27 2004 21:34, Frank Ellermann wrote: > > ned.freed@mrochek.com wrote: > > we botched the versioning thing rather badly, so we're pretty > > much stuck with 1.0 forever. > > Now here's a reason to move the worst *-hacks to a new version, You seem to have missed the point; there almost certainly won't be a new version; among the issues preventing it are: 1. There is no provision for a MIME 1.0-compliant product when it encounters a different MIME-version; what should it do? Revert to non-MIME handling of messages? If not, which specific MIME 1.0 constructs should be handled differently by such a product in those circumstances? 2. The semantics for MIME-Version numbers are unclear; RFC 2045 merely says that there are two integer fields: is "001.000" equivalent to "1.0" (leading zeroes)? 3. What happens when versions are mixed in the same message (e.g. nested message types, multipart types)? MIME-Version fields are only valid at the top-level message header and in encapsulated message type headers. From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Sat Nov 27 23:58:41 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA20659 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 23:58:41 -0500 (EST) 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 iAS4vEBY035631 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 20:57:14 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAS4vEY1035630 for ietf-usefor-skb; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 20:57:14 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAS4vCQW035572 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 20:57:13 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CYH7f-0002Nk-00 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 05:57:19 +0100 Received: from 213.191.80.203 ([213.191.80.203]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 05:57:19 +0100 Received: from nobody by 213.191.80.203 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 05:57:19 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Does 2231 break MIME 1.0? Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 05:48:28 +0100 Organization: Lines: 103 Message-ID: <41A9589C.2866@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <200411270759.47926.blilly@erols.com> <41A9300F.7789@xyzzy.claranet.de> <200411272213.59057.blilly@erols.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.191.80.203 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bruce Lilly wrote: > There simply aren't any cases where a Content-Type or > Content-Disposition field needs multiple parameters with > the same attribute name. Yes. But we're talking about an URL in Injection-Info here, or other cases where more than one value could make sense. Or do you propose to ignore 2231 in these cases, because it's irrelevant for anything not starting with Content-*: ? > there are cases where charset or language need to be > indicated Let's say "can be", because it doesn't work well for the filename= case depending on the native filesystem. I've found a way to generate Latin-1 filenames on my HPFS, which causes a nice dead loop when I change the codepage back to 850. Okay, it's broken and I own the pieces, but something like a universal concept of filename simply does not exist yet. > URIs can be quite long; they're a good example of why > continuation parameters are useful (and the continuation > example in RFC 2231 *is* a URI). They don't have embedded WS, therefore the simple rule to insert resp. remove FWS is much better than the *-hack for URLs. I trust that some implementations get FWS folding right, but I don't believe in the *-hack: url*1*=mozilla; what=ever; url*0*=us-ascii'en-GB-OED'"about:"; Who's supposed to get this right ? If it's correct, of course you can't create it in this order, but apparently you should accept it. Or what about a relatively harmless bad*0*=us-ascii'en-GB-OED'"about:"; bad*1=mozilla; url*0*=us-ascii'en-GB-OED'"about:"; url*1*=mozilla; Apparently only the latter is allowed. I'd simply refuse to implement it, it goes against all my professional instincts. I really love MIME, it's the best standard I know (okay, that collection is somewhat limited, but I'd need more than hands and feet ;-) The RfC 2231 *-hacks really destroy that beauty. > And charset and language tags will also be necessary for the > IRI crowd. Not that I'm aware of, it's IDN for servers and percent-encoded UTF-8 for anything else. Sure, the language tags make sense, chapters 4 and 5 (minus 4.1) in RfC 2231 are fine, or at least tolerable. But the folding rules are not. Fortunately they are unnecessary for URLs. > Sorry, no. Any process that needs to examine MIME body parts > needs to do so properly, and that includes handling RFC 2231 > continuation parameters. IBTD. The proper way is to ignore RfC 2231, and treat anything trying to use it for folding as spam. You cannot mess around with a MIME boundary=, it's the same madness like NO-WS-CTL in a Message-ID. Protocols ought to be robust. > Vendors who cut corners by half-assed approaches to MIME > messages have already caused problems: It's not the implementors who caused these problems, but the authors of RfCs like 2231 and 2184. You just don't break any conforming implementations by adding "extensions" later, that's why there is a version number. It's a PITA, I can see it for the "1" in v=spf1, but it won't go away by pretending that the whole world "upgrades" their perfectly working software. > http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/836088 Quotes: 'Block "message/partial" MIME Types' 'Disable Message Reassembly' That's essentially the same line I used against the *-hacks. Please note that I'm not one of the majority shooting any MIME multipart on sight. Quite the contrary, I like MIME. But some of its "features" aren't "KISS", and that's the precise moment when it breaks sooner or later, if too many users get it wrong or abuse it. > And that's (well) after RFC 1344 specifically mentioned > gateway issues related to MIME. Yes. it's an old problem, some nets limited the mail size, and that's probably still an issue in binary newsgroups, as far as they don't use yenc :-| Content-Conversion is interesting, it's apparently not listed in draft-klyne-hdrreg-mail-05.txt Bye, Frank From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Sun Nov 28 00:29:31 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA24282 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 00:29:30 -0500 (EST) 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 iAS5RxTT083292 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 21:27:59 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAS5Rxe3083287 for ietf-usefor-skb; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 21:27:59 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAS5Rv1J083247 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 21:27:57 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CYHbQ-0003sr-00 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 06:28:04 +0100 Received: from 213.191.80.203 ([213.191.80.203]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 06:28:04 +0100 Received: from nobody by 213.191.80.203 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 06:28:04 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Does 2231 break MIME 1.0? Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 06:27:18 +0100 Organization: Lines: 27 Message-ID: <41A961B6.1B61@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <01LHQ6PD5QTO00005R@mauve.mrochek.com> <41A93947.1CF5@xyzzy.claranet.de> <200411272238.10271.blilly@erols.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.191.80.203 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bruce Lilly wrote: > You seem to have missed the point No. My point was that moving the incompatible *-hacks to a new MIME version kills them for good for this century. > There is no provision for a MIME 1.0-compliant product > when it encounters a different MIME-version; what should > it do? Revert to non-MIME handling of messages? Sure, what else. Garbage in, garbage out. > The semantics for MIME-Version numbers are unclear What is unclear about "verbatim text", as defined in RfC 1521, especially marked as clarification of 1341 ? If "2.0" has a problem with "02.0" or "2.00", then it can say so. But "1.0" is the one and only format for "1.0". > What happens when versions are mixed in the same > message (e.g. nested message types, multipart types)? Let "2.0" solve its own problems, for "1.0" it's irrelevant. Bye, Frank From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Sun Nov 28 08:07:31 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA09563 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 08:07:30 -0500 (EST) 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 iASD5cMF049005 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 05:05:38 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iASD5cOJ049004 for ietf-usefor-skb; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 05:05:38 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from ns1.townisp.com (ns1a.townisp.com [216.195.0.132]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iASD5bp2048963 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 05:05:38 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from blilly@erols.com) Received: from mail.blilly.com (dhcp-0-8-a1-c-fa-f7.cpe.townisp.com [216.49.158.220]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ns1.townisp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91E8B2991F; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 08:05:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.blilly.com with ESMTP id iASD5Y4Z026382(8.12.10/8.12.10/mail.blilly.com sendmail.mc.mail 1.18 2004/05/15 07:23:45) ; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 08:05:34 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by marty.blilly.com with ESMTP id iASD5WaK026381(8.12.10/8.12.10/blilly.com submit.mc 1.1 2003/08/26 22:21:33) ; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 08:05:33 -0500 From: Bruce Lilly Reply-To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Organization: Bruce Lilly To: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Does 2231 break MIME 1.0? Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 08:05:28 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 Cc: ietf-usefor@imc.org References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <200411272213.59057.blilly@erols.com> <41A9589C.2866@xyzzy.claranet.de> In-Reply-To: <41A9589C.2866@xyzzy.claranet.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200411280805.29332.blilly@erols.com> Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Sat November 27 2004 23:48, Frank Ellermann wrote: > > Bruce Lilly wrote: > > > There simply aren't any cases where a Content-Type or > > Content-Disposition field needs multiple parameters with > > the same attribute name. > > Yes. But we're talking about an URL in Injection-Info here, > or other cases where more than one value could make sense. There is still the fact that parameter order is insignificant, whereas in the case of multiple URIs with different schemes, there is almost certainly a preference hierarchy. RFC 2369 handles that by having most preferred first, and uses a mechanism where order can be defined as significant. > Or do you propose to ignore 2231 in these cases, because > it's irrelevant for anything not starting with Content-*: ? Trying to graft MIME parameters onto a non-MIME field is the problem. It's a problem for implementors, and it's a problem for instances like this. It's also unnecessary, as there are other extensible ways of handling name/value pairs in message header trace fields. > > there are cases where charset or language need to be > > indicated > > Let's say "can be", because it doesn't work well for the > filename= case depending on the native filesystem. > > I've found a way to generate Latin-1 filenames on my HPFS, > which causes a nice dead loop when I change the codepage > back to 850. Okay, it's broken and I own the pieces, but > something like a universal concept of filename simply does > not exist yet. Any suggested filename that includes octets outside of the common part of ANSI X3.4/ISO-8859/ISO-10646 requires encoding, and interpretation of encoded content by the recipient requires an indication of the charset. Likewise for charsets which do not share such a common subset, such as EBCDIC. > > URIs can be quite long; they're a good example of why > > continuation parameters are useful (and the continuation > > example in RFC 2231 *is* a URI). > > They don't have embedded WS, therefore the simple rule to > insert resp. remove FWS is much better than the *-hack for > URLs. Yes, such a scheme can be made to work for URIs as an isolated case. But at the protocol level that we're discussing, we're not dealing exclusively with URIs; we're dealing with name/value pairs. Interpretation of such a pair as a URI occurs at a different protocol level. At *this* protocol level, things need to be specified in a manner that works for name/value pairs in general, not just for one isolated case. > url*1*=mozilla; what=ever; url*0*=us-ascii'en-GB-OED'"about:"; > > Who's supposed to get this right ? If it's correct, of course > you can't create it in this order, but apparently you should > accept it. Or what about a relatively harmless > > bad*0*=us-ascii'en-GB-OED'"about:"; bad*1=mozilla; > url*0*=us-ascii'en-GB-OED'"about:"; url*1*=mozilla; > > Apparently only the latter is allowed. I'd simply refuse to > implement it, it goes against all my professional instincts. It's unclear what you intend; there are so many problems with your examples: 1. you can't have double-quotes starting in the middle of a parameter value; you can quote the entire value, except for an extended-initial-value, where tspecials and certain other content must be encoded 2. there's no standard language tag "en-GB-OED"; at minimum the third component is going to be implementation-dependent 3. if you're trying to convey a URI, there is no standard scheme named "about" 4. foo*1*=bar and foo*1=bar are equivalent (but foo*1*=b%61r and foo*1=b%61r are not. Since your last pair of examples differs only in attribute name and trailing asterisk in an extended-other-name whose corresponding value consists entirely of (legal) attribute-chars, it's not clear why you seem to think there is a problem related to those issues (in fact both lines have problems because of the preceding three issues affecting the first parameters in each line). > I really love MIME, it's the best standard I know (okay, that > collection is somewhat limited, but I'd need more than hands > and feet ;-) The RfC 2231 *-hacks really destroy that beauty. That's one opinion; 2231 extensions provide necessary features in a backwards-compatible manner. As MIME itself provded necessary features in a backwards-compatible manner. Or would you prefer to return to the simple beauty of plain text only in a subset of ANSI X3.4? > > And charset and language tags will also be necessary for the > > IRI crowd. > > Not that I'm aware of, it's IDN for servers and percent-encoded > UTF-8 for anything else. Any charset other than the default, including utf-8, needs to be indicated with an appropriate charset tag; otherwise there's no way to know *which* non-default charset is being represented by the encoding. > > Sorry, no. Any process that needs to examine MIME body parts > > needs to do so properly, and that includes handling RFC 2231 > > continuation parameters. > > IBTD. The proper way is to ignore RfC 2231, "Proper way" for *what*? If you're trying to parse a message's Content-Type or Content-Disposition field's parameters, RFC 2231 has to be taken into account -- it is an amendment to the MIME specification which has gone through the IETF process (including consultation with developers). > and treat anything > trying to use it for folding as spam. You can treat all messages as spam if you like; for many people that would result in fewer errors than treating no messages as spam. Most people would be dissatisfied by either extreme approach. > You cannot mess around > with a MIME boundary=, it's the same madness like NO-WS-CTL in > a Message-ID. Protocols ought to be robust. Both protocols are robust as designed; there are, however, plenty of shoddy implementations to point fingers at. MIME multipart boundary delimiters can contain spaces, and may be as long as 70 octets (unencoded, and excluding the double hyphens). They may also contain other characters which would have to be encoded or placed in a quoted parameter value. "Boundary" is eight octets. Syntactic glue adds more length, which may exceed what SHOULD be permitted as the maximum line length. Splitting a long boundary parameter to kep lines within the recommended maximum length is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. In the case of a boundary value containing space characters (e.g. "Next part"), encoding each space character as %20 (which adds length) to avoid breakage by shoddy implementations of transport agents and gateways is also perfectly reasonable. > > Vendors who cut corners by half-assed approaches to MIME > > messages have already caused problems: > > It's not the implementors who caused these problems, but the > authors of RfCs like 2231 and 2184. You just don't break any > conforming implementations by adding "extensions" later, that's > why there is a version number. In the specific instance cited, it is absolutely poor vendor implementations (ignoring RFC 1344) that caused problems. The authors of RFCs 2184 and 231 are also authors of the core MIME RFCs. RFCs 2045-2049 are dated November 1996; 2184 is dated August 1997 and 2231 is dated November 1997. Yes, that's "later", but not by much, and was done with community input and review. You still seem to have some trouble understanding the problems associated with MIME version numbering... > > http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/836088 > > Quotes: 'Block "message/partial" MIME Types' > 'Disable Message Reassembly' > > That's essentially the same line I used against the *-hacks. That's the approach taken by some vendors. "Throw the baby out with the bath water" is *an* approach. Neither is useful. > > And that's (well) after RFC 1344 specifically mentioned > > gateway issues related to MIME. > > Yes. it's an old problem, some nets limited the mail size It's an issue that isn't going to go away. 20 seconds of high-definition video (at 1.5 Gb/s) is 3.75 GB. I suspect that you'd have a hard time sending that in one chunk. > Content-Conversion is interesting, it's apparently not listed > in draft-klyne-hdrreg-mail-05.txt It was a dead end, never standardized; RFC 3297 specifies a mechanism which can accommodate the desires of both sender and recipient. From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Sun Nov 28 08:20:05 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA10197 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 08:20:05 -0500 (EST) 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 iASDJHtH075583 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 05:19:17 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iASDJHE1075582 for ietf-usefor-skb; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 05:19:17 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from ns4.townisp.com (ns4a.townisp.com [216.195.0.138]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iASDJHXS075548 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 05:19:17 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from blilly@erols.com) Received: from mail.blilly.com (dhcp-0-8-a1-c-fa-f7.cpe.townisp.com [216.49.158.220]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ns4.townisp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2FC129909; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 08:19:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.blilly.com with ESMTP id iASDJG8x026531(8.12.10/8.12.10/mail.blilly.com sendmail.mc.mail 1.18 2004/05/15 07:23:45) ; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 08:19:17 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by marty.blilly.com with ESMTP id iASDJGCY026530(8.12.10/8.12.10/blilly.com submit.mc 1.1 2003/08/26 22:21:33) ; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 08:19:16 -0500 From: Bruce Lilly Reply-To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Organization: Bruce Lilly To: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Does 2231 break MIME 1.0? Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 08:19:14 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 Cc: ietf-usefor@imc.org References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <200411272238.10271.blilly@erols.com> <41A961B6.1B61@xyzzy.claranet.de> In-Reply-To: <41A961B6.1B61@xyzzy.claranet.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200411280819.15264.blilly@erols.com> Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Sun November 28 2004 00:27, Frank Ellermann wrote: > > Bruce Lilly wrote: > > > You seem to have missed the point > > No. My point was that moving the incompatible *-hacks to a > new MIME version kills them for good for this century. You have missed the point; RFC 2231 is part of MIME 1.0. You're 7 1/2 years too late (and even then, it would have been unlikely to have had a different MIME version). You can try to convince others that a different version which removes the continuation feature should be established, but that's probably a losing proposition. > > There is no provision for a MIME 1.0-compliant product > > when it encounters a different MIME-version; what should > > it do? Revert to non-MIME handling of messages? > > Sure, what else. Garbage in, garbage out. Well, if you really feel so strongly that a new version which removes parameter continuation, but is otherwise the same as MIME 1.0 is desirable, go ahead and propose it. Bear in mind that that means that for all practical purposes, you'll be limited to sending plain text in ANSI X3.4 for the foreseeable future, since that's what "non-MIME handling" entails. > > The semantics for MIME-Version numbers are unclear > > What is unclear about "verbatim text", as defined in RfC 1521, > especially marked as clarification of 1341 ? If "2.0" has a > problem with "02.0" or "2.00", then it can say so. But "1.0" > is the one and only format for "1.0". None of the specific examples in RFC 2045 are verbatim "1.0" due to CFWS. > > What happens when versions are mixed in the same > > message (e.g. nested message types, multipart types)? > > Let "2.0" solve its own problems, for "1.0" it's irrelevant. Well, I guess we'll leave it to you to work out in your proposal for 2.0 which excludes 1.0's parameter continuation. From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Sun Nov 28 16:22:54 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA16317 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 16:22:53 -0500 (EST) 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 iASLKm61091005 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 13:20:48 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iASLKm0m091004 for ietf-usefor-skb; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 13:20:48 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iASLKkoV090997 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 13:20:46 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CYWTS-0005lW-00 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 22:20:50 +0100 Received: from a077218.dialin.hansenet.de ([213.191.77.218]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 22:20:49 +0100 Received: from nobody by a077218.dialin.hansenet.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 22:20:49 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Does 2231 break MIME 1.0? Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 22:16:18 +0100 Organization: Lines: 139 Message-ID: <41AA4022.29DC@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <200411272213.59057.blilly@erols.com> <41A9589C.2866@xyzzy.claranet.de> <200411280805.29332.blilly@erols.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: a077218.dialin.hansenet.de X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bruce Lilly wrote: > There is still the fact that parameter order is > insignificant, Alexey wanted multiple URLs, he didn't say "ordered list". > there is almost certainly a preference hierarchy. My uninformed interpretation of... | List-Unsubscribe: | , | ...would be "pick what you like". > RFC 2369 handles that by having most preferred first Yes, they say so. But IMHO my personal preferences as a human user are more important. > Trying to graft MIME parameters onto a non-MIME field > is the problem. Okay, so what do you want ? Injection-Info is no Content-*, can we do whatever pleases us and simply have zero or more complaint-url="URL" with the natural FWS folding ? > Any suggested filename that includes octets outside of > the common part of ANSI X3.4/ISO-8859/ISO-10646 requires > encoding If you extract the common octets from the mentioned standards you'd probably get 0..159, that's already too much for all installed filesystems on my box. And it fails for UTF-8, but 0..127 isn't much better. [FWS allows to fold long URLs] > Yes, such a scheme can be made to work for URIs as an > isolated case. But at the protocol level that we're > discussing, we're not dealing exclusively with URIs; we're > dealing with name/value pairs. Are you saying that RfC 2017 got it wrong ? Is that a matter of the "URL" delimiter, and the in RfC 2369 fixes it ? They simply say "internal whitespace being ignored" in 2369. > It's unclear what you intend I intended to screw up about:mozilla beyond recognition using the *-hacks of RfC 2231. > you can't have double-quotes starting in the middle of a > parameter value Fixing that I get url*0*=us-ascii'en-GB-OED'about%3A; > there's no standard language tag "en-GB-OED" Then let's say url*0*=us-ascii'en-GB-oed'about%3A; or just for fun url*0*=us-ascii'i-klingon'about%3A; > there is no standard scheme named "about" Yes, let's use dict://dict.org/d: instead of about: url*0*=us-ascii'i-klingon'dict%3A%2F%2Fdict.org%2Fd%3A [bad*0* and bad*1 vs. url*0* and url*1*] > it's not clear why you seem to think there is a problem > related to those issues The problem was a hallucination on my side, I didn't see the clear title*2="isn't it!" example in 4.1. So now we have... url*1=mozilla; what=ever; url*0*=us-ascii'i-klingon'dict%3A%2F%2Fdict.org%2Fd%3A ...and still the question "who's supposed to get this right ?" >> The RfC 2231 *-hacks really destroy that beauty. > That's one opinion; 2231 extensions provide necessary > features in a backwards-compatible manner. Minus the problem with multiple parameters, and ignoring the side-effects of using it where some old (resp. simple) MIME implementations don't expect it (as in boundary=) > would you prefer to return to the simple beauty of plain text > only in a subset of ANSI X3.4? Not when I need a multipart/digest in an abuse complaint. ;-) Of course some abuse desks still insist on plain/text, because a script deleting the Content-Type in the main headers on their side if they don't like it would be asking too much. :-( > RFC 2231 has to be taken into account -- it is an amendment > to the MIME specification which has gone through the IETF > process (including consultation with developers). It can be still incompatible resp. a PITA, and some ideas just don't fly. > Splitting a long boundary parameter to keep lines within the > recommended maximum length is a perfectly reasonable thing to > do. Our definitions of "perfectly reasonable" are different, in my definition there's a "if it can cause harm just don't do it". > The authors of RFCs 2184 and 231 are also authors of the > core MIME RFCs. RFCs 2045-2049 are dated November 1996; > 2184 is dated August 1997 and 2231 is dated November 1997. > Yes, that's "later", but not by much 2045 is based on 1521 (September 1993) resp. 1341 (June 1992), and 5 years are IMHO too much to introduce "extensions" which turn out to be incompatibilities. In the case of v=spf1 "we" (a "tinw" known as SPF community) have a problem with 6 months. [message/partial] > It's an issue that isn't going to go away. 20 seconds of > high-definition video (at 1.5 Gb/s) is 3.75 GB. I suspect > that you'd have a hard time sending that in one chunk. Yes, it's more than my entire harddisk space. You could try an external body with HTTP/1.1 chunking if you insist on it, for message/partial you'd better check the routing before. [RfC 1344, Content-Conversion] > It was a dead end, never standardized The future 3864 registry apparently allows status "historic", the RfC editor page claims status "informational" for RfC 1344. Bye, Frank From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Sun Nov 28 16:56:32 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA18552 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 16:56:32 -0500 (EST) 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 iASLtJ31037693 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 13:55:19 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iASLtJZo037692 for ietf-usefor-skb; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 13:55:19 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iASLtHMV037661 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 13:55:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CYX0s-0007gr-00 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 22:55:22 +0100 Received: from a077218.dialin.hansenet.de ([213.191.77.218]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 22:55:22 +0100 Received: from nobody by a077218.dialin.hansenet.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 22:55:22 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Does 2231 break MIME 1.0? Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 22:52:19 +0100 Organization: Lines: 42 Message-ID: <41AA4893.3D41@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <200411272238.10271.blilly@erols.com> <41A961B6.1B61@xyzzy.claranet.de> <200411280819.15264.blilly@erols.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: a077218.dialin.hansenet.de X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bruce Lilly wrote: > You have missed the point; RFC 2231 is part of MIME 1.0. It can't if it's incompatible. You have shown this with: | Content-Type: text/plain ; foo*0=x ; foo*2=z ; foo*0=a ; | foo*1=y ; foo*2=c ; foo*1=b > You're 7 1/2 years too late First of all you found this incompatibility, I missed it, and then it's never too late to find and fix a bug. > You can try to convince others that a different version > which removes the continuation feature should be > established, but that's probably a losing proposition. Quite the contrary, it would be the new MIME version which adds this incompatible restriction as a side-effect of the continuation "feature" (= feature in MIME 2.0, bug in 1.0) > None of the specific examples in RFC 2045 are verbatim > "1.0" due to CFWS. | Messages composed in accordance with this document MUST | include such a header field, with the following verbatim | text: | MIME-Version: 1.0 [...] | NOTE TO IMPLEMENTORS: When checking MIME-Version values any | RFC 822 comment strings that are present must be ignored. Sorry, I still don't see any problem with this specification. > we'll leave it to you to work out in your proposal for 2.0 > which excludes 1.0's parameter continuation. I'm not planning a new version. MIME "1.0" ends with RfC 2049, because RfC 2231 would be incompatible, and you're the crown witness. I'm only a member of the star chamber ;-) Bye, Frank From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Sun Nov 28 19:11:01 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA29154 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 19:11:01 -0500 (EST) 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 iAT09L4A031495 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 16:09:21 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAT09LCn031490 for ietf-usefor-skb; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 16:09:21 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from b.mail.peak.org (b.mail.peak.org [69.59.192.42]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAT09KNv031309 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 16:09:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from stanley@peak.org) Received: from a.shell.peak.org ([69.59.192.81]) by b.mail.peak.org (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id iAT09H63075664 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 16:09:19 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 16:09:17 -0800 (PST) From: John Stanley X-X-Sender: stanley@a.shell.peak.org To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: poll methodology Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Score: 0 () X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.39 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: "Charles Lindsey" : >If you include, in your list of preferences, the point at which "I could >live with the ones above this, but not those below", ... This assumes an implicit "above" and "below" relationship, which almost certainly will not exist in the kinds of options that appear in the USEFOR working group straw polls. Examine any poll we've had, and whenever anyone has answered "3 is the only acceptable response", you've found such a case. If you convert that to "anything 3 or less", you are wrong. From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Sun Nov 28 19:34:11 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA01032 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 19:34:10 -0500 (EST) 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 iAT0WkbE066852 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 16:32:46 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAT0WkbS066851 for ietf-usefor-skb; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 16:32:46 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from spsystems.net (spsystems.net [216.126.83.115]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAT0Wkgh066547 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 16:32:46 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from henry@spsystems.net) Received: from spsystems.net (henry@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spsystems.net (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id iAT0WLcC022458; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 19:32:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (from henry@localhost) by spsystems.net (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id iAT0WKDf022457; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 19:32:20 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 19:32:20 -0500 (EST) From: Henry Spencer To: Usefor Mailing List Subject: Re: poll methodology In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Sun, 28 Nov 2004, John Stanley wrote: > >If you include, in your list of preferences, the point at which "I could > >live with the ones above this, but not those below", ... > > This assumes an implicit "above" and "below" relationship, which almost > certainly will not exist in the kinds of options that appear in the > USEFOR working group straw polls. Examine any poll we've had, and whenever > anyone has answered "3 is the only acceptable response", you've found > such a case. If you convert that to "anything 3 or less", you are wrong. Note that Charles's divider is to be in *your* list of preferences, not in the list as presented in the question; it divides your list, not the question's list, into two parts. The way the alternatives are numbered is irrelevant. Henry Spencer henry@spsystems.net From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Mon Nov 29 22:15:51 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA13674 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 2004 22:15:50 -0500 (EST) 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 iAU3CWsu079931 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 2004 19:12:32 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAU3CWqk079930 for ietf-usefor-skb; Mon, 29 Nov 2004 19:12:32 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp801.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp801.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.138]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id iAU3CVWj079753 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 2004 19:12:32 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-74-111.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.74.111 with poptime) by smtp801.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 30 Nov 2004 03:12:22 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id iAU3CAQ08176 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 03:12:10 GMT To: LIST: ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20357 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: msg-id Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <200411232008.PAA17357@ietf.org> <41A57095.5AA4@xyzzy.claranet.de> <200411251402.27855.blilly@erols.com> <41A7EA9D.641C@xyzzy.claranet.de> Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 21:29:41 GMT Lines: 61 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <41A7EA9D.641C@xyzzy.claranet.de> Frank Ellermann writes: >Charles Lindsey wrote: >> The requirements for a unique message identifier are: >> 1. That it can safely be regarded as a sequence of bytes >> which can be compared for simple equality >ACK. We could discuss cases-insensitive domains. Please No :-( . Once you have copied your domain, either upper-wise or lower-wise into your message-id, then you are stuck with it that way. >> 3. It SHOULD be human readable over the telephone. >Is that about the effects of NAK or DLE in certain protocols ? >It MUST be printable us-ascii, no nonsense. If it isn't printable, then it isn't readable over the telephone. >> 4. It MAY contain information useful to humans (hence the >> excellent convention of using a domain name or IP address in >> the id-right. >This "convention" is a MUST, otherwise you can't guarantee the >uniqueness. No, there are other ways that can be done. Look at Agent, which routinely uses the same id-right for everybody. And that convention is not a MUST in RFC 2822 (though it is strongly suggested). >> Frank wants to bring in some of C. It would indeed be >> technically sensible to do so, but it would probably be >> politically unwise. >Why's that the case ? We're supposed to get it right, we're >not supposed to copy all bugs from a memo which is already >obsolete, if I got Bruce's remarks about a new 2822bis right. We are going to have trouble enough to get our _essential_ changes into RFC 2822bis. I just don't think pushing our luck with anything further is going to get us anywhere. The IETF is too packed with people who believe that "The Internet Message Format" is some inviolable edifice that we "News" people are refusing to bow down before, and we must be taught our place. But if the WG really wants to follow that route .......... -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Tue Nov 30 09:51:23 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA23966 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 09:51:23 -0500 (EST) 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 iAUEnS2J032118 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 06:49:28 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAUEnSg3032110 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 06:49:28 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.61]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAUEnNlA031800 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 06:49:23 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from blilly@erols.com) X-Info: This message was accepted for relay by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net as the sender used SMTP authentication X-Trace: xKuDcmQQN9lS7lSetgkNH/ah/QsKaUZvrFpy5szFxJI= Received: from 65.105.220.34.ptr.us.xo.net ([65.105.220.34] helo=mail.blilly.com) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #7) id 1CZ9Ji-00048p-00; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 09:49:22 -0500 Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.blilly.com with ESMTP id iAUEmY34026511(8.12.10/8.12.10/mail.blilly.com sendmail.mc.mail 1.18 2004/05/15 07:23:45) ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 09:48:45 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by marty.blilly.com with ESMTP id iAUEmEu5026504(8.12.10/8.12.10/blilly.com submit.mc 1.1 2003/08/26 22:21:33) ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 09:48:26 -0500 From: Bruce Lilly Reply-To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Organization: Bruce Lilly To: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Does 2231 break MIME 1.0? Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 08:47:50 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 Cc: ietf-usefor@imc.org References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <200411280819.15264.blilly@erols.com> <41AA4893.3D41@xyzzy.claranet.de> In-Reply-To: <41AA4893.3D41@xyzzy.claranet.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200411300847.50569.blilly@erols.com> Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Sun November 28 2004 16:52, Frank Ellermann wrote: > It can't if it's incompatible. You have shown this with: > > | Content-Type: text/plain ; foo*0=x ; foo*2=z ; foo*0=a ; > | foo*1=y ; foo*2=c ; foo*1=b Since there cannot be multiple instances of the same attribute in the same field due to other considerations, it's not incompatible. > > You're 7 1/2 years too late > > First of all you found this incompatibility, I missed it, > and then it's never too late to find and fix a bug. Apparently the issue of attribute uniqueness (which, as noted above is not an incompatibility) has long been known, but hasn't been publicly documented in the applicable standards yet. I chose to present that as an example of why one cannot have multiple instances of the same attribute name because it's easy to comprehend w.r.t. the specific discussion taking place here; as noted it's not the sole factor which prevents multiple instances of an attribute name. > > You can try to convince others that a different version > > which removes the continuation feature should be > > established, but that's probably a losing proposition. > > Quite the contrary, it would be the new MIME version which > adds this incompatible restriction as a side-effect of the > continuation "feature" (= feature in MIME 2.0, bug in 1.0) As mentioned, RFC 2231 is already part of MIME 1.0, and has been for quite some time. It's not a "bug". It's incorporated in a variety of products, and an attempt to remove it would be an incompatible change at this point -- it would break existing implementations which comply with Standards Track protocol. > Sorry, I still don't see any problem with this specification. Pretty much a moot point since a new version is unlikely. > I'm not planning a new version. MIME "1.0" ends with RfC 2049, > because RfC 2231 would be incompatible No. RFC 2231 is intentionally compatible, and specifically amends RFCs 2045 and 2047. From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Tue Nov 30 09:51:36 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA23998 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 09:51:35 -0500 (EST) 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 iAUEnQU0032036 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 06:49:26 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAUEnQ6h032035 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 06:49:26 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.61]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAUEnNpY031799 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 06:49:23 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from blilly@erols.com) X-Info: This message was accepted for relay by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net as the sender used SMTP authentication X-Trace: xKuDcmQQN9mV6AlH7z/gBGtiOmIyAMqsTG0GsKrJ3j0= Received: from 65.105.220.34.ptr.us.xo.net ([65.105.220.34] helo=mail.blilly.com) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #7) id 1CZ9Ji-00048o-00; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 09:49:22 -0500 Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.blilly.com with ESMTP id iAUEmY36026511(8.12.10/8.12.10/mail.blilly.com sendmail.mc.mail 1.18 2004/05/15 07:23:45) ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 09:49:00 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by marty.blilly.com with ESMTP id iAUEmEu6026504(8.12.10/8.12.10/blilly.com submit.mc 1.1 2003/08/26 22:21:33) ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 09:49:00 -0500 From: Bruce Lilly Reply-To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Organization: Bruce Lilly To: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Does 2231 break MIME 1.0? Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 09:31:14 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 Cc: ietf-usefor@imc.org References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <200411280805.29332.blilly@erols.com> <41AA4022.29DC@xyzzy.claranet.de> In-Reply-To: <41AA4022.29DC@xyzzy.claranet.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200411300931.15442.blilly@erols.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Sun November 28 2004 16:16, Frank Ellermann wrote: > Okay, so what do you want ? Injection-Info is no Content-*, > can we do whatever pleases us and simply have zero or more > complaint-url="URL" with the natural FWS folding ? We could, provided we provide a clear and complete specification. We should consider liklihood of implementation. It has been claimed (unconvincingly) that because there may exist parsing of MIME parameters for Content-Type and Content-Disposition fields in some software, parsing of such parameters in other fields will magically happen as well. More likely parsing would be botched or such new fields would simply be ignored by many developers. We could devise some mechanism which is not used anywhere else, possibly with similar results. Or we could use something comparable to what is used in existing message fields and which is relatively simple to parse. It depends on what we really want to achieve; do we want to specify something that will have a chance of being implemented correctly, or do we want to devise a complex scheme to show that we can write a complex specification? > > Any suggested filename that includes octets outside of > > the common part of ANSI X3.4/ISO-8859/ISO-10646 requires > > encoding > > If you extract the common octets from the mentioned standards > you'd probably get 0..159, that's already too much for all > installed filesystems on my box. And it fails for UTF-8, but > 0..127 isn't much better. ANSI X3.4 is limited to 0-127 and in practice there are values within that range that require encoding. > [FWS allows to fold long URLs] > > Yes, such a scheme can be made to work for URIs as an > > isolated case. But at the protocol level that we're > > discussing, we're not dealing exclusively with URIs; we're > > dealing with name/value pairs. > > Are you saying that RfC 2017 got it wrong ? No, RFC 2017 deals exclusively with URIs in a subset of a single case (URIs with media type message/external body) in a single field (Content-Type). We're not discussing that field or media type or message body access mechanism. > Is that a matter > of the "URL" delimiter, and the in RfC 2369 fixes it ? RFC 2369 handles URIs (per RFC 1738 syntax, compatible with 2396 syntax), but is incompletely specified (no ABNF!). If we wish to use multiple URIs in a separate field similar to the List- fields described in RFC 2369, we could use that mechanism, but we should completely specify it including ABNF. That's complicated by incompatible changes in the URI syntax draft which will probably be approved before we get around to a specification. > They simply say "internal whitespace being ignored" in 2369. RFC 2369 also says "MUST NOT insert whitespace within the brackets". Ignoring whitespace when parsing is apparently intended to cope with mangling during transit, not as a mechanism for deliberately folding long URIs when generating a field. RFC 2369 completely ignores (the common case of) long URIs. > > It's unclear what you intend > > I intended to screw up about:mozilla beyond recognition using > the *-hacks of RfC 2231. > url*1=mozilla; what=ever; > url*0*=us-ascii'i-klingon'dict%3A%2F%2Fdict.org%2Fd%3A > > ...and still the question "who's supposed to get this right ?" You really should be using the registered language tag "tlh" instead of the deprecated "i-klingon". Aside from that nit, I get two parameters: what=ever url=dict://dict.org/d:mozilla > >> The RfC 2231 *-hacks really destroy that beauty. > > > That's one opinion; 2231 extensions provide necessary > > features in a backwards-compatible manner. > > Minus the problem with multiple parameters, That issue was always present, and as noted in the ietf-822 discussion, the only reasonable conclusion is that multiple instances of parameters with the same attribute name in a single field are not permitted -- completely independently of parameter continuation issues. > and ignoring the > side-effects of using it where some old (resp. simple) MIME > implementations don't expect it (as in boundary=) As I said, there are plenty of shoddy implementations to point fingers at. Users of old software can use metamail to handle MIME. > > would you prefer to return to the simple beauty of plain text > > only in a subset of ANSI X3.4? > > Not when I need a multipart/digest in an abuse complaint. ;-) Why do you think you *need* multipart/digest? > > RFC 2231 has to be taken into account -- it is an amendment > > to the MIME specification which has gone through the IETF > > process (including consultation with developers). > > It can be still incompatible resp. a PITA, and some ideas just > don't fly. RFC 2231 has been around for seven years and has multiple interoperable implementations. > > Splitting a long boundary parameter to keep lines within the > > recommended maximum length is a perfectly reasonable thing to > > do. > > Our definitions of "perfectly reasonable" are different, in my > definition there's a "if it can cause harm just don't do it". Splitting long parameters when generating *avoids* harm caused by improper folding in transit. > > The authors of RFCs 2184 and 231 are also authors of the > > core MIME RFCs. RFCs 2045-2049 are dated November 1996; > > 2184 is dated August 1997 and 2231 is dated November 1997. > > Yes, that's "later", but not by much > > 2045 is based on 1521 (September 1993) resp. 1341 (June 1992), > and 5 years are IMHO too much to introduce "extensions" which > turn out to be incompatibilities. In the case of v=spf1 "we" > (a "tinw" known as SPF community) have a problem with 6 months. RFC 2231 is already on the Standards Track. Too late now to try to derail it. > The future 3864 registry apparently allows status "historic", > the RfC editor page claims status "informational" for RfC 1344. "Historic" status is generally used for something that was at one time standardized but has become obsolete or is otherwise deprecated; Content-Conversion was never standardized. RFC 1344 is still active as an informational RFC (N.B. it doesn't purport to standardize a Content-Conversion field; it merely suggests that one might be standardized -- that never happened). Much of it is effectively obsolete due to subsequent activity, but the parts about message/partial and gateways are still applicable, and the point is that vendors who ignore proper handling of MIME (as has been the case with some products as noted in the CERT vulnerability note previously linked) place their users at risk. From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Tue Nov 30 15:13:25 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA29232 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 15:13:25 -0500 (EST) 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 iAUKB0KG040641 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 12:11:01 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAUKAxip040636 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 12:10:59 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAUKAmo6040399 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 12:10:49 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from root by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CZEKj-0002GU-00 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 21:10:45 +0100 Received: from dialk077.ppp.lrz-muenchen.de ([141.84.26.77]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 21:10:45 +0100 Received: from claus by dialk077.ppp.lrz-muenchen.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 21:10:45 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: claus@faerber.muc.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Claus_F=E4rber?=) Subject: Re: ***SPAM-3*** Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Date: 30 Nov 2004 20:57:00 +0100 Lines: 16 Message-ID: <9LqCD9xocDD@gmane.3247.org> References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <4198F210.1049@xyzzy.claranet.de> <200411190923.17497.blilly@erols.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: dialk077.ppp.lrz-muenchen.de User-Agent: OpenXP/3.9.8-cvs (Win32; Delphi) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Bruce Lilly schrieb/wrote: > You are wrong; the syntax is very close and may pose problems for some > types of parsers. If you really thought the syntax was easily > distinguishable, then you would have proposed a single parameter > rather than two parameters in #2. Well, it *is* possible. Absolute(!) URIs start with ":" (i.e. /^[a-z][a-z0-9+\.-]+:/ as a regexp) while email addresses can't have an unquoted ":". But it's far less roboust than just using mailto URIs; implementor's *will* get it wrong. Claus -- http://www.faerber.muc.de From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Tue Nov 30 15:28:25 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA00972 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 15:28:24 -0500 (EST) 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 iAUKQqHp049288 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 12:26:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAUKQqp3049287 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 12:26:52 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.61]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAUKQpat049257 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 12:26:51 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from blilly@erols.com) X-Info: This message was accepted for relay by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net as the sender used SMTP authentication X-Trace: K2M3Rjh3BD/JAuriG1HiNjp6aIpZ6wCI/WsQ9ucAv7k= Received: from 65.105.220.34.ptr.us.xo.net ([65.105.220.34] helo=mail.blilly.com) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #7) id 1CZEaN-0003Ih-00; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 15:26:55 -0500 Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.blilly.com with ESMTP id iAUKQCB2005903(8.12.10/8.12.10/mail.blilly.com sendmail.mc.mail 1.18 2004/05/15 07:23:45) ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 15:26:20 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by marty.blilly.com with ESMTP id iAUKQBeS005902(8.12.10/8.12.10/blilly.com submit.mc 1.1 2003/08/26 22:21:33) ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 15:26:12 -0500 From: Bruce Lilly Reply-To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Organization: Bruce Lilly To: Claus =?iso-8859-1?q?F=E4rber?= Subject: Re: ***SPAM-3*** Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 15:26:09 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 Cc: ietf-usefor@imc.org References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <200411190923.17497.blilly@erols.com> <9LqCD9xocDD@gmane.3247.org> In-Reply-To: <9LqCD9xocDD@gmane.3247.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200411301526.10148.blilly@erols.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by above.proper.com id iAUKQqat049269 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Tue November 30 2004 14:57, Claus Färber wrote: > > Bruce Lilly schrieb/wrote: > > You are wrong; the syntax is very close and may pose problems for some > > types of parsers. If you really thought the syntax was easily > > distinguishable, then you would have proposed a single parameter > > rather than two parameters in #2. > > Well, it *is* possible. Absolute(!) URIs start with ":" (i.e. > /^[a-z][a-z0-9+\.-]+:/ as a regexp) while email addresses can't have an > unquoted ":". No, mailto:foo@bar.com; is a legal address (N.B. that is *NOT* a mailto URI!). Note that "address" encompasses named groups (as above) as well as single mailboxes. > But it's far less roboust than just using mailto URIs; > implementor's *will* get it wrong. Now an address such as the above is terminated with a semicolon, whereas a mailto URI is not. Semicolons may appear in URIs, however, so a simple RE (which in any event isn't a parser per se) is unlikely to suffice. In any event, there are parsers with limited look-ahead capability that will have problems with determining whether something is a URI or and address. From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Tue Nov 30 19:04:18 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA02309 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 19:04:18 -0500 (EST) 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 iB1028jx036288 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 16:02:08 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iB1028m2036287 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 16:02:08 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iB1026M4036233 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 16:02:06 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CZHwg-00021U-00 for ; Wed, 01 Dec 2004 01:02:10 +0100 Received: from 62.80.58.82 ([62.80.58.82]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 01 Dec 2004 01:02:10 +0100 Received: from nobody by 62.80.58.82 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 01 Dec 2004 01:02:10 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Does 2231 break MIME 1.0? Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 01:00:12 +0100 Organization: Lines: 49 Message-ID: <41AD098C.12BC@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <200411280805.29332.blilly@erols.com> <41AA4022.29DC@xyzzy.claranet.de> <200411300931.15442.blilly@erols.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.80.58.82 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bruce Lilly wrote: >> can we do whatever pleases us and simply have zero or >> more complaint-url="URL" with the natural FWS folding ? > We could, provided we provide a clear and complete > specification. Now that's good news. We have a proposed syntax allowing [FWS] within the URL, anyhthing else should be also simple. >> url*1=mozilla; what=ever; >> url*0*=us-ascii'i-klingon'dict%3A%2F%2Fdict.org%2Fd%3A > You really should be using the registered language tag > "tlh" instead of the deprecated "i-klingon". IIRC it's not yet deprecated, the stuff about tags is still only a draft. The last time I read it they tried to use an obsolete version of ISO 3166 (minus CS problem), and their en-GB-scouse (or similar) matched en but not en-scouse. A better example, de-CH-1996 should match either de-1996 (= "new orthography") or de-CH (= "no szlig") before de. > url=dict://dict.org/d:mozilla Yes, you got it right, but it's still a pain to implement it in simple user agents. Same problem as in your remark: | do we want to specify something that will have a chance | of being implemented correctly > Why do you think you *need* multipart/digest? It's convenient if I want to send multiple related mails to a single service like abuse@ or SpamCop. And it's in the list of RfC 2049 (minimal MIME conformance). > RFC 2231 is already on the Standards Track. Too late > now to try to derail it. IMHO it is "derailed", you found a serious problem in it, not only one of the typos listed as "errata". Maybe they can fix it somehow, add a "MUST be unique" to MIME, and a "MUST NOT be used for simple parameters like boundary" to the wannabe-extension. Bye, Frank From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Tue Nov 30 19:30:37 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA04377 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 19:30:36 -0500 (EST) 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 iB10TEA1074950 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 16:29:14 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iB10TEaY074949 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 16:29:14 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iB10TC8Q074900 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 16:29:13 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CZIMw-0003UU-00 for ; Wed, 01 Dec 2004 01:29:18 +0100 Received: from 62.80.58.82 ([62.80.58.82]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 01 Dec 2004 01:29:17 +0100 Received: from nobody by 62.80.58.82 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 01 Dec 2004 01:29:17 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Does 2231 break MIME 1.0? Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 01:27:34 +0100 Organization: Lines: 33 Message-ID: <41AD0FF6.6B9D@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <200411280819.15264.blilly@erols.com> <41AA4893.3D41@xyzzy.claranet.de> <200411300847.50569.blilly@erols.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.80.58.82 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bruce Lilly wrote: > Since there cannot be multiple instances of the same > attribute in the same field due to other considerations, > it's not incompatible. What "other considerations" ? The author saying that he had something like an environment in mind explains why he forgot to mention it explicitly. But we've already seen that it could make sense, e.g. if I'd say... charset=windows-1252 ; charset=iso-8859-1 ...it could stand for "I didn't use any 128..159, it works with whatever you have, and if you really insist on it I'm ready to accept replies with windows-1252". Something else I've seen in real spam was another case of magic=off ; magic=on ; magic=off Three Content-* headers with name=spam.htm (1st and 3rd) and name=evil.exe (2nd) trying to trigger filters based on the long list of WIN executable names. IIRC that confused SpamCop, SC doesn't allow to report mail worms as spam. > RFC 2231 is intentionally compatible, and specifically > amends RFCs 2045 and 2047. IBTD and recommend to avoid it like hell until the authors fix the many problems with it somehow. Bye, Frank From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Tue Nov 30 20:20:43 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA09636 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 20:20:43 -0500 (EST) 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 iB11HB2n048043 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 17:17:11 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iB11HBPw048039 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 17:17:11 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.61]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iB11HAnK047990 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 17:17:10 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from blilly@erols.com) X-Info: This message was accepted for relay by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net as the sender used SMTP authentication X-Trace: HZRX6AEYk8mm5w1DlOVUgR4ffwd+KmJFdXk7cj9yKaE= Received: from 65.105.220.34.ptr.us.xo.net ([65.105.220.34] helo=mail.blilly.com) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #7) id 1CZJ7L-0007jB-00; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 20:17:15 -0500 Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.blilly.com with ESMTP id iB11H59A007408(8.12.10/8.12.10/mail.blilly.com sendmail.mc.mail 1.18 2004/05/15 07:23:45) ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 20:17:05 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by marty.blilly.com with ESMTP id iB11H4pR007407(8.12.10/8.12.10/blilly.com submit.mc 1.1 2003/08/26 22:21:33) ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 20:17:05 -0500 From: Bruce Lilly Reply-To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Organization: Bruce Lilly To: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Does 2231 break MIME 1.0? Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 20:17:04 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 Cc: ietf-usefor@imc.org References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <200411300847.50569.blilly@erols.com> <41AD0FF6.6B9D@xyzzy.claranet.de> In-Reply-To: <41AD0FF6.6B9D@xyzzy.claranet.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200411302017.04696.blilly@erols.com> Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tue November 30 2004 19:27, Frank Ellermann wrote: > > Bruce Lilly wrote: > > > Since there cannot be multiple instances of the same > > attribute in the same field due to other considerations, > > it's not incompatible. > > What "other considerations" ? Insignificance of order, as Ned explained in the ietf-822 message that I cited earlier. > > RFC 2231 is intentionally compatible, and specifically > > amends RFCs 2045 and 2047. > > IBTD and recommend to avoid it like hell until the authors > fix the many problems with it somehow. Are you referring to something other than the published errata? From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Tue Nov 30 20:33:37 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA10498 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 20:33:37 -0500 (EST) 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 iB11Vt0Y070195 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 17:31:55 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iB11Vtbm070194 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 17:31:55 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.61]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iB11Vt45070186 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 17:31:55 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from blilly@erols.com) X-Info: This message was accepted for relay by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net as the sender used SMTP authentication X-Trace: ZXPUH3f8Rw9JGqBLBCFVt8D/EECE3mCo45X1GUkl8CQ= Received: from 65.105.220.34.ptr.us.xo.net ([65.105.220.34] helo=mail.blilly.com) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #7) id 1CZJLc-000248-00; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 20:32:00 -0500 Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.blilly.com with ESMTP id iB11VfMS007571(8.12.10/8.12.10/mail.blilly.com sendmail.mc.mail 1.18 2004/05/15 07:23:45) ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 20:31:46 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by marty.blilly.com with ESMTP id iB11Ve67007570(8.12.10/8.12.10/blilly.com submit.mc 1.1 2003/08/26 22:21:33) ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 20:31:41 -0500 From: Bruce Lilly Reply-To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Organization: Bruce Lilly To: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Does 2231 break MIME 1.0? Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 20:31:39 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 Cc: ietf-usefor@imc.org References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <200411300931.15442.blilly@erols.com> <41AD098C.12BC@xyzzy.claranet.de> In-Reply-To: <41AD098C.12BC@xyzzy.claranet.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200411302031.40183.blilly@erols.com> Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tue November 30 2004 19:00, Frank Ellermann wrote: > > Bruce Lilly wrote: > > You really should be using the registered language tag > > "tlh" instead of the deprecated "i-klingon". > > IIRC it's not yet deprecated, According to my local copy of the official language-tags document: i-klingon Klingon [Everson] Deprecated use ISO 639-2 tlh, registered Feb. 24, 2004. [Don't blame me for the weird indentation] > > url=dict://dict.org/d:mozilla > > Yes, you got it right, but it's still a pain to implement > it in simple user agents. Here's the complete code change necessary to print the parameters: *** hooktest.c Tue Nov 30 09:56:57 2004 --- franktest.c Tue Nov 30 08:12:39 2004 *************** *** 178,186 **** fprintf(stderr, "%d: ", child); print_token(stderr, 0, fld->tokens, 0); pmt(": ", fld->entity, 0, 0); ! if (parameter_list) print_tokens(stderr, 0, parameter_list, 0); ! else fputs("\r\n", stderr); } else hooks(fld, type, 0); /* RFC 2049 */ --- 178,200 ---- fprintf(stderr, "%d: ", child); print_token(stderr, 0, fld->tokens, 0); pmt(": ", fld->entity, 0, 0); ! if (parameter_list) { ! struct token *t; ! struct list *l; ! struct parameter *p; ! char buf[1024]; ! print_tokens(stderr, 0, parameter_list, 0); ! for (t = parameter_list, l = t? t->list->head->list: 0; l ; t = l->element, l = t? t->list: 0) { ! p = t->parameter; ! if (p && p->attribute) { ! buf[0] = '\0'; ! get_parameter(fld->entity->message, parameter_list, p->attribute->tok, buf, sizeof(buf), 0); ! if (buf[0]) ! printf("%s=%s\n", p->attribute->tok, buf); ! } ! } ! } else fputs("\r\n", stderr); } else hooks(fld, type, 0); /* RFC 2049 */ I simply did: print "Content-Type: text/plain ; url*1=mozilla; what=ever; url*0*=us-ascii'i-klingon'dict%3A%2F%2Fdict.org%2Fd%3A\r" | ./franktest -a and pasted the appropriate parts of the results into this morning's message. The entire process from reading your message to composing a response with the result took only a few minutes. Implementation in UAs is not difficult given the right set of tools [adding the capability for new fields in existing UAs is a horse of a different color]. > > Why do you think you *need* multipart/digest? > > It's convenient if I want to send multiple related mails > to a single service like abuse@ or SpamCop. And it's in > the list of RfC 2049 (minimal MIME conformance). convenience (for one party) != need. Perhaps the recipient finds it inconvenient to handle multiple messages packaged in a digest (ISPs often wish to add a tracking identification tag to each individual message). From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Tue Nov 30 22:26:48 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA20008 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 22:26:48 -0500 (EST) 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 iB13NnHr057774 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 19:23:49 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iB13Nnmj057773 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 19:23:49 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iB13NlfW057737 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 19:23:48 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CZL5t-0005HG-00 for ; Wed, 01 Dec 2004 04:23:53 +0100 Received: from 62.80.58.82 ([62.80.58.82]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 01 Dec 2004 04:23:53 +0100 Received: from nobody by 62.80.58.82 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 01 Dec 2004 04:23:53 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: msg-id Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 04:19:32 +0100 Organization: Lines: 120 Message-ID: <41AD3844.684F@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <200411232008.PAA17357@ietf.org> <41A57095.5AA4@xyzzy.claranet.de> <200411251402.27855.blilly@erols.com> <41A7EA9D.641C@xyzzy.claranet.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.80.58.82 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Charles Lindsey wrote: >> We could discuss cases-insensitive domains. > Please No :-( . Once you have copied your domain, either > upper-wise or lower-wise into your message-id, then you are > stuck with it that way. Henry's future FYI said "domain is case-insensitive", that's why I mentioned it. If you don't like it then it goes again in the direction of an opaque "magic token", and nobody should mess around with it. The "magic token" concept is fine, but why not extend it to the complete msg-id-core ? No canonical form, if somebody used a quoted-pair don't touch it, any attempt to "fix" it by a third party makes it worse. >> It MUST be printable us-ascii, no nonsense. > If it isn't printable, then it isn't readable over the > telephone. Fine, that kills FWS and NO-WS-CTL in msg-id-core. [id-right] > there are other ways that can be done. Look at Agent, which > routinely uses the same id-right for everybody. AFAIK they use a domain reserved for this purpose, within the syntax of 2821, no problem for other domains. > not a MUST in RFC 2822 (though it is strongly suggested). Message-IDs are the essence of Usenet, you can't copy concepts of a text where Message-IDs are only a SHOULD. RfC 2822 says "MUST guarantee that the msg-id is unique", and "some domain identifier" in id-right is RECOMMENDED (= SHOULD). For mail they could tolerate something like... Message-ID : <1234 @ local(blah) .machine .example> ...as obsolete, but it's illegal in RfC 1036 and its son. > We are going to have trouble enough to get our _essential_ > changes into RFC 2822bis. Message-IDs are essential, we're supposed to get this right, it's no fight with RfC 2822bis, let them fix their own texts. BTW, where is this mythical 2822bis ? Google doesn't find a 2822bis at ietf.org, there's no active WG listed at ietf.org, any WG even remotely related to mail or MIME is apparently closed, we're the last survivors. > The IETF is too packed with people who believe that "The > Internet Message Format" is some inviolable edifice that we > "News" people are refusing to bow down before Now you're confusing Bruce with "the IETF", and he finds all bugs, we're lucky to have him. He finds even bugs he doesn't want to find. ;-) And you're listed in the RfC 2822 credits, together with Russ, Alexej, Paul, and Graham, no conspiracy to screw-up net news. > But if the WG really wants to follow that route .......... ...as long as you restrict 2822 constructs to a proper subset you're free to do "the right thing". Back to Message-IDs, you have: | message-id = "Message-ID:" SP msg-id CRLF | msg-id = [FWS] msg-id-core [FWS] That's IMHO wrong, because a CRLF anywhere in these FWS is not allowed by an explicit MUST in the text. One way to fix it is *WSP instead of [FWS], but Bruce didn't like it. Another way is FWS instead of SP, and simplify this beast to: message-id = "Message-ID:" FWS msg-id-core *WSP CRLF No more msg-id. You could use a similar trick to replace the dubious SP [FWS] by FWS resp. [FWS] CRLF by *WSP CRLF in many other productions. This allows "name:" CRLF SP "content" CRLF (among others), but forbids any "name:content" CRLF. If that's okay you also have to replace one "MUST SP" by "MUST FWS". | msg-id-core = "<" id-left "@" id-right ">" | ; maximum length is 250 octets No problem here, it's obviously not the same as 2822 msg-id. You can replace id-right by domain (see below) as in s-o-1036. | id-right = dot-atom-text / no-fold-literal Here you could copy the 2821 syntax for "domain": | domain = (sub-domain 1*("." sub-domain)) / address-literal The "1" is dubious for our purposes, therefore you'd get this: domain = (sub-domain *("." sub-domain)) / address-literal | sub-domain = Let-dig [Ldh-str] | Let-dig = ALPHA / DIGIT | Ldh-str = *( ALPHA / DIGIT / "-" ) Let-dig And some rules for any address-literal, ugly but no problems. For id-left it depends on what you want. If the case of the id-right is significant for our purposes, then you could also say that all quoted-pairs in id-left are to be taken literally. Otherwise we could simply disallow the "\" in a quoted id-left. That would eliminate \\ and \". You have already eliminated the ">" as in s-o-1036. Bye, Frank From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Tue Nov 30 22:34:06 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA20395 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 22:34:05 -0500 (EST) 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 iB13WYuW074993 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 19:32:34 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iB13WYLx074990 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 19:32:34 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp3.Stanford.EDU (smtp3.Stanford.EDU [171.67.16.138]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iB13WX6c074914 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 19:32:34 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp3.Stanford.EDU (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id iB13WbV7011059 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 19:32:37 -0800 Received: (qmail 13319 invoked by uid 1000); 1 Dec 2004 03:32:37 -0000 To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: msg-id In-Reply-To: <41AD3844.684F@xyzzy.claranet.de> (Frank Ellermann's message of "Wed, 01 Dec 2004 04:19:32 +0100") References: <200411232008.PAA17357@ietf.org> <41A57095.5AA4@xyzzy.claranet.de> <200411251402.27855.blilly@erols.com> <41A7EA9D.641C@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41AD3844.684F@xyzzy.claranet.de> From: Russ Allbery Organization: The Eyrie Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 19:32:37 -0800 Message-ID: <87sm6qofqi.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) XEmacs/21.4 (Security Through Obscurity, linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Frank Ellermann writes: > Charles Lindsey wrote: >> The IETF is too packed with people who believe that "The >> Internet Message Format" is some inviolable edifice that we >> "News" people are refusing to bow down before > Now you're confusing Bruce with "the IETF", and he finds all > bugs, we're lucky to have him. He finds even bugs he doesn't > want to find. ;-) > And you're listed in the RfC 2822 credits, together with Russ, > Alexej, Paul, and Graham, no conspiracy to screw-up net news. I am included in Charles's paragraph above. I'm not sure that I'd agree with the characterization, but I do think that we should be making the minimal possible changes to RFC 2822 that still let software keep working, and I think it's wrong the degree to which Usenet has wandered off into the weeds reinventing wheels. Of course, I don't think this actually screws up netnews. I wouldn't. :) -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) 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 iB15GOnY071636 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 21:16:24 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iB15GOZM071633 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 21:16:24 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iB15GLu0071503 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 21:16:22 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CZMqq-0002Ih-00 for ; Wed, 01 Dec 2004 06:16:28 +0100 Received: from 62.80.58.82 ([62.80.58.82]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 01 Dec 2004 06:16:28 +0100 Received: from nobody by 62.80.58.82 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 01 Dec 2004 06:16:28 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Does 2231 break MIME 1.0? Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 06:13:28 +0100 Organization: Lines: 70 Message-ID: <41AD52F8.130D@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <200411300931.15442.blilly@erols.com> <41AD098C.12BC@xyzzy.claranet.de> <200411302031.40183.blilly@erols.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.80.58.82 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Bruce Lilly wrote: > According to my local copy of the official language-tags > document: | i-klingon Klingon [Everson] Deprecated use ISO | 639-2 tlh, registered Strange, I don't have a local copy of "official" tags, but an The last I heard about the new scheme was a draft with some problems like X-Y-Z ~ X-Y but X-Y-Z !~ X-Z, and all the old i-tags like i-default etc. as grandfathered. IMHO unusable, unless they add a frozen 3166 list (before the big CS oops). > the complete code change necessary to print the parameters: Sorry, I don't have the C source for this patch, but it's a bad sign that you had to change something. The patch does not show how you handle any duplicated resp. missing pieces. > Implementation in UAs is not difficult given the right set > of tools It's a PITA if all you want is to find the next MIME part, because that's not the precise moment where you want any: boundary*1="pa\\rt " ; dup*1="two" ; mia*0="missing" ; dup*0=one ; mia*3=action ; dup*1=dup ; boundary*0=multi ; Just in case, maybe you want more weird test cases ;-) Don't forget to get rid of the trailing space in this boundary (another trick used against SpamCop, of course fixed now). In one of my scripts I remove all \, that is a bad idea for \\, maybe I'll fix it later. > ISPs often wish to add a tracking identification tag > to each individual message. Not in the case of 50 worms from the same IP. ;-) Yes, it depends on the recipient, but multipart/digest is in the "minimal MIME conformance" RfC. Joining our two 2231 threads again: >>> Since there cannot be multiple instances of the same >>> attribute in the same field due to other considerations, >>> it's not incompatible. >> What "other considerations" ? > Insignificance of order, as Ned explained in the ietf-822 > message that I cited earlier. "Insignificance of order" and "unique" are quite different. The latter is a "set" (any item is either IN or OUT), the former is a "bag" (IIRC, please correct me if I'm wrong). > Are you referring to something other than the published > errata? That's too substantial for the "errata". Now give the poor authors a break, it's less than two weeks that you found this bug. The proposed strategy (add "MUST be unique" and limit *-hacks to parameters where it can't cause harm) may need a year, it affects at least two RfCs. Bye, Frank 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 iB13WYuW074993 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 19:32:34 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iB13WYLx074990 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 19:32:34 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp3.Stanford.EDU (smtp3.Stanford.EDU [171.67.16.138]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iB13WX6c074914 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 19:32:34 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp3.Stanford.EDU (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id iB13WbV7011059 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 19:32:37 -0800 Received: (qmail 13319 invoked by uid 1000); 1 Dec 2004 03:32:37 -0000 To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: msg-id In-Reply-To: <41AD3844.684F@xyzzy.claranet.de> (Frank Ellermann's message of "Wed, 01 Dec 2004 04:19:32 +0100") References: <200411232008.PAA17357@ietf.org> <41A57095.5AA4@xyzzy.claranet.de> <200411251402.27855.blilly@erols.com> <41A7EA9D.641C@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41AD3844.684F@xyzzy.claranet.de> From: Russ Allbery Organization: The Eyrie Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 19:32:37 -0800 Message-ID: <87sm6qofqi.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) XEmacs/21.4 (Security Through Obscurity, linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Frank Ellermann writes: > Charles Lindsey wrote: >> The IETF is too packed with people who believe that "The >> Internet Message Format" is some inviolable edifice that we >> "News" people are refusing to bow down before > Now you're confusing Bruce with "the IETF", and he finds all > bugs, we're lucky to have him. He finds even bugs he doesn't > want to find. ;-) > And you're listed in the RfC 2822 credits, together with Russ, > Alexej, Paul, and Graham, no conspiracy to screw-up net news. I am included in Charles's paragraph above. I'm not sure that I'd agree with the characterization, but I do think that we should be making the minimal possible changes to RFC 2822 that still let software keep working, and I think it's wrong the degree to which Usenet has wandered off into the weeds reinventing wheels. Of course, I don't think this actually screws up netnews. I wouldn't. :) -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) 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 iB13NnHr057774 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 19:23:49 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iB13Nnmj057773 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 19:23:49 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iB13NlfW057737 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 19:23:48 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CZL5t-0005HG-00 for ; Wed, 01 Dec 2004 04:23:53 +0100 Received: from 62.80.58.82 ([62.80.58.82]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 01 Dec 2004 04:23:53 +0100 Received: from nobody by 62.80.58.82 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 01 Dec 2004 04:23:53 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: msg-id Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 04:19:32 +0100 Organization: Lines: 120 Message-ID: <41AD3844.684F@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <200411232008.PAA17357@ietf.org> <41A57095.5AA4@xyzzy.claranet.de> <200411251402.27855.blilly@erols.com> <41A7EA9D.641C@xyzzy.claranet.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.80.58.82 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Charles Lindsey wrote: >> We could discuss cases-insensitive domains. > Please No :-( . Once you have copied your domain, either > upper-wise or lower-wise into your message-id, then you are > stuck with it that way. Henry's future FYI said "domain is case-insensitive", that's why I mentioned it. If you don't like it then it goes again in the direction of an opaque "magic token", and nobody should mess around with it. The "magic token" concept is fine, but why not extend it to the complete msg-id-core ? No canonical form, if somebody used a quoted-pair don't touch it, any attempt to "fix" it by a third party makes it worse. >> It MUST be printable us-ascii, no nonsense. > If it isn't printable, then it isn't readable over the > telephone. Fine, that kills FWS and NO-WS-CTL in msg-id-core. [id-right] > there are other ways that can be done. Look at Agent, which > routinely uses the same id-right for everybody. AFAIK they use a domain reserved for this purpose, within the syntax of 2821, no problem for other domains. > not a MUST in RFC 2822 (though it is strongly suggested). Message-IDs are the essence of Usenet, you can't copy concepts of a text where Message-IDs are only a SHOULD. RfC 2822 says "MUST guarantee that the msg-id is unique", and "some domain identifier" in id-right is RECOMMENDED (= SHOULD). For mail they could tolerate something like... Message-ID : <1234 @ local(blah) .machine .example> ...as obsolete, but it's illegal in RfC 1036 and its son. > We are going to have trouble enough to get our _essential_ > changes into RFC 2822bis. Message-IDs are essential, we're supposed to get this right, it's no fight with RfC 2822bis, let them fix their own texts. BTW, where is this mythical 2822bis ? Google doesn't find a 2822bis at ietf.org, there's no active WG listed at ietf.org, any WG even remotely related to mail or MIME is apparently closed, we're the last survivors. > The IETF is too packed with people who believe that "The > Internet Message Format" is some inviolable edifice that we > "News" people are refusing to bow down before Now you're confusing Bruce with "the IETF", and he finds all bugs, we're lucky to have him. He finds even bugs he doesn't want to find. ;-) And you're listed in the RfC 2822 credits, together with Russ, Alexej, Paul, and Graham, no conspiracy to screw-up net news. > But if the WG really wants to follow that route .......... ...as long as you restrict 2822 constructs to a proper subset you're free to do "the right thing". Back to Message-IDs, you have: | message-id = "Message-ID:" SP msg-id CRLF | msg-id = [FWS] msg-id-core [FWS] That's IMHO wrong, because a CRLF anywhere in these FWS is not allowed by an explicit MUST in the text. One way to fix it is *WSP instead of [FWS], but Bruce didn't like it. Another way is FWS instead of SP, and simplify this beast to: message-id = "Message-ID:" FWS msg-id-core *WSP CRLF No more msg-id. You could use a similar trick to replace the dubious SP [FWS] by FWS resp. [FWS] CRLF by *WSP CRLF in many other productions. This allows "name:" CRLF SP "content" CRLF (among others), but forbids any "name:content" CRLF. If that's okay you also have to replace one "MUST SP" by "MUST FWS". | msg-id-core = "<" id-left "@" id-right ">" | ; maximum length is 250 octets No problem here, it's obviously not the same as 2822 msg-id. You can replace id-right by domain (see below) as in s-o-1036. | id-right = dot-atom-text / no-fold-literal Here you could copy the 2821 syntax for "domain": | domain = (sub-domain 1*("." sub-domain)) / address-literal The "1" is dubious for our purposes, therefore you'd get this: domain = (sub-domain *("." sub-domain)) / address-literal | sub-domain = Let-dig [Ldh-str] | Let-dig = ALPHA / DIGIT | Ldh-str = *( ALPHA / DIGIT / "-" ) Let-dig And some rules for any address-literal, ugly but no problems. For id-left it depends on what you want. If the case of the id-right is significant for our purposes, then you could also say that all quoted-pairs in id-left are to be taken literally. Otherwise we could simply disallow the "\" in a quoted id-left. That would eliminate \\ and \". You have already eliminated the ">" as in s-o-1036. Bye, Frank 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 iB11Vt0Y070195 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 17:31:55 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iB11Vtbm070194 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 17:31:55 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.61]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iB11Vt45070186 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 17:31:55 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from blilly@erols.com) X-Info: This message was accepted for relay by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net as the sender used SMTP authentication X-Trace: ZXPUH3f8Rw9JGqBLBCFVt8D/EECE3mCo45X1GUkl8CQ= Received: from 65.105.220.34.ptr.us.xo.net ([65.105.220.34] helo=mail.blilly.com) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #7) id 1CZJLc-000248-00; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 20:32:00 -0500 Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.blilly.com with ESMTP id iB11VfMS007571(8.12.10/8.12.10/mail.blilly.com sendmail.mc.mail 1.18 2004/05/15 07:23:45) ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 20:31:46 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by marty.blilly.com with ESMTP id iB11Ve67007570(8.12.10/8.12.10/blilly.com submit.mc 1.1 2003/08/26 22:21:33) ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 20:31:41 -0500 From: Bruce Lilly Reply-To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Organization: Bruce Lilly To: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Does 2231 break MIME 1.0? Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 20:31:39 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 Cc: ietf-usefor@imc.org References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <200411300931.15442.blilly@erols.com> <41AD098C.12BC@xyzzy.claranet.de> In-Reply-To: <41AD098C.12BC@xyzzy.claranet.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200411302031.40183.blilly@erols.com> Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Tue November 30 2004 19:00, Frank Ellermann wrote: > > Bruce Lilly wrote: > > You really should be using the registered language tag > > "tlh" instead of the deprecated "i-klingon". > > IIRC it's not yet deprecated, According to my local copy of the official language-tags document: i-klingon Klingon [Everson] Deprecated use ISO 639-2 tlh, registered Feb. 24, 2004. [Don't blame me for the weird indentation] > > url=dict://dict.org/d:mozilla > > Yes, you got it right, but it's still a pain to implement > it in simple user agents. Here's the complete code change necessary to print the parameters: *** hooktest.c Tue Nov 30 09:56:57 2004 --- franktest.c Tue Nov 30 08:12:39 2004 *************** *** 178,186 **** fprintf(stderr, "%d: ", child); print_token(stderr, 0, fld->tokens, 0); pmt(": ", fld->entity, 0, 0); ! if (parameter_list) print_tokens(stderr, 0, parameter_list, 0); ! else fputs("\r\n", stderr); } else hooks(fld, type, 0); /* RFC 2049 */ --- 178,200 ---- fprintf(stderr, "%d: ", child); print_token(stderr, 0, fld->tokens, 0); pmt(": ", fld->entity, 0, 0); ! if (parameter_list) { ! struct token *t; ! struct list *l; ! struct parameter *p; ! char buf[1024]; ! print_tokens(stderr, 0, parameter_list, 0); ! for (t = parameter_list, l = t? t->list->head->list: 0; l ; t = l->element, l = t? t->list: 0) { ! p = t->parameter; ! if (p && p->attribute) { ! buf[0] = '\0'; ! get_parameter(fld->entity->message, parameter_list, p->attribute->tok, buf, sizeof(buf), 0); ! if (buf[0]) ! printf("%s=%s\n", p->attribute->tok, buf); ! } ! } ! } else fputs("\r\n", stderr); } else hooks(fld, type, 0); /* RFC 2049 */ I simply did: print "Content-Type: text/plain ; url*1=mozilla; what=ever; url*0*=us-ascii'i-klingon'dict%3A%2F%2Fdict.org%2Fd%3A\r" | ./franktest -a and pasted the appropriate parts of the results into this morning's message. The entire process from reading your message to composing a response with the result took only a few minutes. Implementation in UAs is not difficult given the right set of tools [adding the capability for new fields in existing UAs is a horse of a different color]. > > Why do you think you *need* multipart/digest? > > It's convenient if I want to send multiple related mails > to a single service like abuse@ or SpamCop. And it's in > the list of RfC 2049 (minimal MIME conformance). convenience (for one party) != need. Perhaps the recipient finds it inconvenient to handle multiple messages packaged in a digest (ISPs often wish to add a tracking identification tag to each individual message). 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 iB11HB2n048043 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 17:17:11 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iB11HBPw048039 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 17:17:11 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.61]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iB11HAnK047990 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 17:17:10 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from blilly@erols.com) X-Info: This message was accepted for relay by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net as the sender used SMTP authentication X-Trace: HZRX6AEYk8mm5w1DlOVUgR4ffwd+KmJFdXk7cj9yKaE= Received: from 65.105.220.34.ptr.us.xo.net ([65.105.220.34] helo=mail.blilly.com) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #7) id 1CZJ7L-0007jB-00; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 20:17:15 -0500 Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.blilly.com with ESMTP id iB11H59A007408(8.12.10/8.12.10/mail.blilly.com sendmail.mc.mail 1.18 2004/05/15 07:23:45) ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 20:17:05 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by marty.blilly.com with ESMTP id iB11H4pR007407(8.12.10/8.12.10/blilly.com submit.mc 1.1 2003/08/26 22:21:33) ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 20:17:05 -0500 From: Bruce Lilly Reply-To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Organization: Bruce Lilly To: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Does 2231 break MIME 1.0? Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 20:17:04 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 Cc: ietf-usefor@imc.org References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <200411300847.50569.blilly@erols.com> <41AD0FF6.6B9D@xyzzy.claranet.de> In-Reply-To: <41AD0FF6.6B9D@xyzzy.claranet.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200411302017.04696.blilly@erols.com> Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Tue November 30 2004 19:27, Frank Ellermann wrote: > > Bruce Lilly wrote: > > > Since there cannot be multiple instances of the same > > attribute in the same field due to other considerations, > > it's not incompatible. > > What "other considerations" ? Insignificance of order, as Ned explained in the ietf-822 message that I cited earlier. > > RFC 2231 is intentionally compatible, and specifically > > amends RFCs 2045 and 2047. > > IBTD and recommend to avoid it like hell until the authors > fix the many problems with it somehow. Are you referring to something other than the published errata? 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 iB10TEA1074950 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 16:29:14 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iB10TEaY074949 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 16:29:14 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iB10TC8Q074900 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 16:29:13 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CZIMw-0003UU-00 for ; Wed, 01 Dec 2004 01:29:18 +0100 Received: from 62.80.58.82 ([62.80.58.82]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 01 Dec 2004 01:29:17 +0100 Received: from nobody by 62.80.58.82 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 01 Dec 2004 01:29:17 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Does 2231 break MIME 1.0? Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 01:27:34 +0100 Organization: Lines: 33 Message-ID: <41AD0FF6.6B9D@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <200411280819.15264.blilly@erols.com> <41AA4893.3D41@xyzzy.claranet.de> <200411300847.50569.blilly@erols.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.80.58.82 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Bruce Lilly wrote: > Since there cannot be multiple instances of the same > attribute in the same field due to other considerations, > it's not incompatible. What "other considerations" ? The author saying that he had something like an environment in mind explains why he forgot to mention it explicitly. But we've already seen that it could make sense, e.g. if I'd say... charset=windows-1252 ; charset=iso-8859-1 ...it could stand for "I didn't use any 128..159, it works with whatever you have, and if you really insist on it I'm ready to accept replies with windows-1252". Something else I've seen in real spam was another case of magic=off ; magic=on ; magic=off Three Content-* headers with name=spam.htm (1st and 3rd) and name=evil.exe (2nd) trying to trigger filters based on the long list of WIN executable names. IIRC that confused SpamCop, SC doesn't allow to report mail worms as spam. > RFC 2231 is intentionally compatible, and specifically > amends RFCs 2045 and 2047. IBTD and recommend to avoid it like hell until the authors fix the many problems with it somehow. Bye, Frank 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 iB1028jx036288 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 16:02:08 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iB1028m2036287 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 16:02:08 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iB1026M4036233 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 16:02:06 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CZHwg-00021U-00 for ; Wed, 01 Dec 2004 01:02:10 +0100 Received: from 62.80.58.82 ([62.80.58.82]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 01 Dec 2004 01:02:10 +0100 Received: from nobody by 62.80.58.82 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 01 Dec 2004 01:02:10 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Does 2231 break MIME 1.0? Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 01:00:12 +0100 Organization: Lines: 49 Message-ID: <41AD098C.12BC@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <200411280805.29332.blilly@erols.com> <41AA4022.29DC@xyzzy.claranet.de> <200411300931.15442.blilly@erols.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.80.58.82 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Bruce Lilly wrote: >> can we do whatever pleases us and simply have zero or >> more complaint-url="URL" with the natural FWS folding ? > We could, provided we provide a clear and complete > specification. Now that's good news. We have a proposed syntax allowing [FWS] within the URL, anyhthing else should be also simple. >> url*1=mozilla; what=ever; >> url*0*=us-ascii'i-klingon'dict%3A%2F%2Fdict.org%2Fd%3A > You really should be using the registered language tag > "tlh" instead of the deprecated "i-klingon". IIRC it's not yet deprecated, the stuff about tags is still only a draft. The last time I read it they tried to use an obsolete version of ISO 3166 (minus CS problem), and their en-GB-scouse (or similar) matched en but not en-scouse. A better example, de-CH-1996 should match either de-1996 (= "new orthography") or de-CH (= "no szlig") before de. > url=dict://dict.org/d:mozilla Yes, you got it right, but it's still a pain to implement it in simple user agents. Same problem as in your remark: | do we want to specify something that will have a chance | of being implemented correctly > Why do you think you *need* multipart/digest? It's convenient if I want to send multiple related mails to a single service like abuse@ or SpamCop. And it's in the list of RfC 2049 (minimal MIME conformance). > RFC 2231 is already on the Standards Track. Too late > now to try to derail it. IMHO it is "derailed", you found a serious problem in it, not only one of the typos listed as "errata". Maybe they can fix it somehow, add a "MUST be unique" to MIME, and a "MUST NOT be used for simple parameters like boundary" to the wannabe-extension. Bye, Frank 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 iAUKQqHp049288 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 12:26:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAUKQqp3049287 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 12:26:52 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.61]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAUKQpat049257 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 12:26:51 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from blilly@erols.com) X-Info: This message was accepted for relay by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net as the sender used SMTP authentication X-Trace: K2M3Rjh3BD/JAuriG1HiNjp6aIpZ6wCI/WsQ9ucAv7k= Received: from 65.105.220.34.ptr.us.xo.net ([65.105.220.34] helo=mail.blilly.com) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #7) id 1CZEaN-0003Ih-00; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 15:26:55 -0500 Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.blilly.com with ESMTP id iAUKQCB2005903(8.12.10/8.12.10/mail.blilly.com sendmail.mc.mail 1.18 2004/05/15 07:23:45) ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 15:26:20 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by marty.blilly.com with ESMTP id iAUKQBeS005902(8.12.10/8.12.10/blilly.com submit.mc 1.1 2003/08/26 22:21:33) ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 15:26:12 -0500 From: Bruce Lilly Reply-To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Organization: Bruce Lilly To: Claus =?iso-8859-1?q?F=E4rber?= Subject: Re: ***SPAM-3*** Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 15:26:09 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 Cc: ietf-usefor@imc.org References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <200411190923.17497.blilly@erols.com> <9LqCD9xocDD@gmane.3247.org> In-Reply-To: <9LqCD9xocDD@gmane.3247.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200411301526.10148.blilly@erols.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by above.proper.com id iAUKQqat049269 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Tue November 30 2004 14:57, Claus Färber wrote: > > Bruce Lilly schrieb/wrote: > > You are wrong; the syntax is very close and may pose problems for some > > types of parsers. If you really thought the syntax was easily > > distinguishable, then you would have proposed a single parameter > > rather than two parameters in #2. > > Well, it *is* possible. Absolute(!) URIs start with ":" (i.e. > /^[a-z][a-z0-9+\.-]+:/ as a regexp) while email addresses can't have an > unquoted ":". No, mailto:foo@bar.com; is a legal address (N.B. that is *NOT* a mailto URI!). Note that "address" encompasses named groups (as above) as well as single mailboxes. > But it's far less roboust than just using mailto URIs; > implementor's *will* get it wrong. Now an address such as the above is terminated with a semicolon, whereas a mailto URI is not. Semicolons may appear in URIs, however, so a simple RE (which in any event isn't a parser per se) is unlikely to suffice. In any event, there are parsers with limited look-ahead capability that will have problems with determining whether something is a URI or and address. 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 iAUKB0KG040641 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 12:11:01 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAUKAxip040636 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 12:10:59 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAUKAmo6040399 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 12:10:49 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from root by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CZEKj-0002GU-00 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 21:10:45 +0100 Received: from dialk077.ppp.lrz-muenchen.de ([141.84.26.77]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 21:10:45 +0100 Received: from claus by dialk077.ppp.lrz-muenchen.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 21:10:45 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: claus@faerber.muc.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Claus_F=E4rber?=) Subject: Re: ***SPAM-3*** Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Date: 30 Nov 2004 20:57:00 +0100 Lines: 16 Message-ID: <9LqCD9xocDD@gmane.3247.org> References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <4198F210.1049@xyzzy.claranet.de> <200411190923.17497.blilly@erols.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: dialk077.ppp.lrz-muenchen.de User-Agent: OpenXP/3.9.8-cvs (Win32; Delphi) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Bruce Lilly schrieb/wrote: > You are wrong; the syntax is very close and may pose problems for some > types of parsers. If you really thought the syntax was easily > distinguishable, then you would have proposed a single parameter > rather than two parameters in #2. Well, it *is* possible. Absolute(!) URIs start with ":" (i.e. /^[a-z][a-z0-9+\.-]+:/ as a regexp) while email addresses can't have an unquoted ":". But it's far less roboust than just using mailto URIs; implementor's *will* get it wrong. Claus -- http://www.faerber.muc.de 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 iAUEnS2J032118 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 06:49:28 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAUEnSg3032110 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 06:49:28 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.61]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAUEnNlA031800 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 06:49:23 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from blilly@erols.com) X-Info: This message was accepted for relay by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net as the sender used SMTP authentication X-Trace: xKuDcmQQN9lS7lSetgkNH/ah/QsKaUZvrFpy5szFxJI= Received: from 65.105.220.34.ptr.us.xo.net ([65.105.220.34] helo=mail.blilly.com) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #7) id 1CZ9Ji-00048p-00; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 09:49:22 -0500 Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.blilly.com with ESMTP id iAUEmY34026511(8.12.10/8.12.10/mail.blilly.com sendmail.mc.mail 1.18 2004/05/15 07:23:45) ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 09:48:45 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by marty.blilly.com with ESMTP id iAUEmEu5026504(8.12.10/8.12.10/blilly.com submit.mc 1.1 2003/08/26 22:21:33) ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 09:48:26 -0500 From: Bruce Lilly Reply-To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Organization: Bruce Lilly To: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Does 2231 break MIME 1.0? Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 08:47:50 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 Cc: ietf-usefor@imc.org References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <200411280819.15264.blilly@erols.com> <41AA4893.3D41@xyzzy.claranet.de> In-Reply-To: <41AA4893.3D41@xyzzy.claranet.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200411300847.50569.blilly@erols.com> Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Sun November 28 2004 16:52, Frank Ellermann wrote: > It can't if it's incompatible. You have shown this with: > > | Content-Type: text/plain ; foo*0=x ; foo*2=z ; foo*0=a ; > | foo*1=y ; foo*2=c ; foo*1=b Since there cannot be multiple instances of the same attribute in the same field due to other considerations, it's not incompatible. > > You're 7 1/2 years too late > > First of all you found this incompatibility, I missed it, > and then it's never too late to find and fix a bug. Apparently the issue of attribute uniqueness (which, as noted above is not an incompatibility) has long been known, but hasn't been publicly documented in the applicable standards yet. I chose to present that as an example of why one cannot have multiple instances of the same attribute name because it's easy to comprehend w.r.t. the specific discussion taking place here; as noted it's not the sole factor which prevents multiple instances of an attribute name. > > You can try to convince others that a different version > > which removes the continuation feature should be > > established, but that's probably a losing proposition. > > Quite the contrary, it would be the new MIME version which > adds this incompatible restriction as a side-effect of the > continuation "feature" (= feature in MIME 2.0, bug in 1.0) As mentioned, RFC 2231 is already part of MIME 1.0, and has been for quite some time. It's not a "bug". It's incorporated in a variety of products, and an attempt to remove it would be an incompatible change at this point -- it would break existing implementations which comply with Standards Track protocol. > Sorry, I still don't see any problem with this specification. Pretty much a moot point since a new version is unlikely. > I'm not planning a new version. MIME "1.0" ends with RfC 2049, > because RfC 2231 would be incompatible No. RFC 2231 is intentionally compatible, and specifically amends RFCs 2045 and 2047. 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 iAUEnQU0032036 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 06:49:26 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAUEnQ6h032035 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 06:49:26 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.61]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAUEnNpY031799 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 06:49:23 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from blilly@erols.com) X-Info: This message was accepted for relay by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net as the sender used SMTP authentication X-Trace: xKuDcmQQN9mV6AlH7z/gBGtiOmIyAMqsTG0GsKrJ3j0= Received: from 65.105.220.34.ptr.us.xo.net ([65.105.220.34] helo=mail.blilly.com) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #7) id 1CZ9Ji-00048o-00; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 09:49:22 -0500 Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.blilly.com with ESMTP id iAUEmY36026511(8.12.10/8.12.10/mail.blilly.com sendmail.mc.mail 1.18 2004/05/15 07:23:45) ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 09:49:00 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by marty.blilly.com with ESMTP id iAUEmEu6026504(8.12.10/8.12.10/blilly.com submit.mc 1.1 2003/08/26 22:21:33) ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 09:49:00 -0500 From: Bruce Lilly Reply-To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Organization: Bruce Lilly To: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Does 2231 break MIME 1.0? Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 09:31:14 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 Cc: ietf-usefor@imc.org References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <200411280805.29332.blilly@erols.com> <41AA4022.29DC@xyzzy.claranet.de> In-Reply-To: <41AA4022.29DC@xyzzy.claranet.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200411300931.15442.blilly@erols.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Sun November 28 2004 16:16, Frank Ellermann wrote: > Okay, so what do you want ? Injection-Info is no Content-*, > can we do whatever pleases us and simply have zero or more > complaint-url="URL" with the natural FWS folding ? We could, provided we provide a clear and complete specification. We should consider liklihood of implementation. It has been claimed (unconvincingly) that because there may exist parsing of MIME parameters for Content-Type and Content-Disposition fields in some software, parsing of such parameters in other fields will magically happen as well. More likely parsing would be botched or such new fields would simply be ignored by many developers. We could devise some mechanism which is not used anywhere else, possibly with similar results. Or we could use something comparable to what is used in existing message fields and which is relatively simple to parse. It depends on what we really want to achieve; do we want to specify something that will have a chance of being implemented correctly, or do we want to devise a complex scheme to show that we can write a complex specification? > > Any suggested filename that includes octets outside of > > the common part of ANSI X3.4/ISO-8859/ISO-10646 requires > > encoding > > If you extract the common octets from the mentioned standards > you'd probably get 0..159, that's already too much for all > installed filesystems on my box. And it fails for UTF-8, but > 0..127 isn't much better. ANSI X3.4 is limited to 0-127 and in practice there are values within that range that require encoding. > [FWS allows to fold long URLs] > > Yes, such a scheme can be made to work for URIs as an > > isolated case. But at the protocol level that we're > > discussing, we're not dealing exclusively with URIs; we're > > dealing with name/value pairs. > > Are you saying that RfC 2017 got it wrong ? No, RFC 2017 deals exclusively with URIs in a subset of a single case (URIs with media type message/external body) in a single field (Content-Type). We're not discussing that field or media type or message body access mechanism. > Is that a matter > of the "URL" delimiter, and the in RfC 2369 fixes it ? RFC 2369 handles URIs (per RFC 1738 syntax, compatible with 2396 syntax), but is incompletely specified (no ABNF!). If we wish to use multiple URIs in a separate field similar to the List- fields described in RFC 2369, we could use that mechanism, but we should completely specify it including ABNF. That's complicated by incompatible changes in the URI syntax draft which will probably be approved before we get around to a specification. > They simply say "internal whitespace being ignored" in 2369. RFC 2369 also says "MUST NOT insert whitespace within the brackets". Ignoring whitespace when parsing is apparently intended to cope with mangling during transit, not as a mechanism for deliberately folding long URIs when generating a field. RFC 2369 completely ignores (the common case of) long URIs. > > It's unclear what you intend > > I intended to screw up about:mozilla beyond recognition using > the *-hacks of RfC 2231. > url*1=mozilla; what=ever; > url*0*=us-ascii'i-klingon'dict%3A%2F%2Fdict.org%2Fd%3A > > ...and still the question "who's supposed to get this right ?" You really should be using the registered language tag "tlh" instead of the deprecated "i-klingon". Aside from that nit, I get two parameters: what=ever url=dict://dict.org/d:mozilla > >> The RfC 2231 *-hacks really destroy that beauty. > > > That's one opinion; 2231 extensions provide necessary > > features in a backwards-compatible manner. > > Minus the problem with multiple parameters, That issue was always present, and as noted in the ietf-822 discussion, the only reasonable conclusion is that multiple instances of parameters with the same attribute name in a single field are not permitted -- completely independently of parameter continuation issues. > and ignoring the > side-effects of using it where some old (resp. simple) MIME > implementations don't expect it (as in boundary=) As I said, there are plenty of shoddy implementations to point fingers at. Users of old software can use metamail to handle MIME. > > would you prefer to return to the simple beauty of plain text > > only in a subset of ANSI X3.4? > > Not when I need a multipart/digest in an abuse complaint. ;-) Why do you think you *need* multipart/digest? > > RFC 2231 has to be taken into account -- it is an amendment > > to the MIME specification which has gone through the IETF > > process (including consultation with developers). > > It can be still incompatible resp. a PITA, and some ideas just > don't fly. RFC 2231 has been around for seven years and has multiple interoperable implementations. > > Splitting a long boundary parameter to keep lines within the > > recommended maximum length is a perfectly reasonable thing to > > do. > > Our definitions of "perfectly reasonable" are different, in my > definition there's a "if it can cause harm just don't do it". Splitting long parameters when generating *avoids* harm caused by improper folding in transit. > > The authors of RFCs 2184 and 231 are also authors of the > > core MIME RFCs. RFCs 2045-2049 are dated November 1996; > > 2184 is dated August 1997 and 2231 is dated November 1997. > > Yes, that's "later", but not by much > > 2045 is based on 1521 (September 1993) resp. 1341 (June 1992), > and 5 years are IMHO too much to introduce "extensions" which > turn out to be incompatibilities. In the case of v=spf1 "we" > (a "tinw" known as SPF community) have a problem with 6 months. RFC 2231 is already on the Standards Track. Too late now to try to derail it. > The future 3864 registry apparently allows status "historic", > the RfC editor page claims status "informational" for RfC 1344. "Historic" status is generally used for something that was at one time standardized but has become obsolete or is otherwise deprecated; Content-Conversion was never standardized. RFC 1344 is still active as an informational RFC (N.B. it doesn't purport to standardize a Content-Conversion field; it merely suggests that one might be standardized -- that never happened). Much of it is effectively obsolete due to subsequent activity, but the parts about message/partial and gateways are still applicable, and the point is that vendors who ignore proper handling of MIME (as has been the case with some products as noted in the CERT vulnerability note previously linked) place their users at risk. 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 iAU3CWsu079931 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 2004 19:12:32 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAU3CWqk079930 for ietf-usefor-skb; Mon, 29 Nov 2004 19:12:32 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp801.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp801.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.138]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id iAU3CVWj079753 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 2004 19:12:32 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-74-111.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.74.111 with poptime) by smtp801.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 30 Nov 2004 03:12:22 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id iAU3CAQ08176 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 03:12:10 GMT To: LIST: ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20357 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: msg-id Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <200411232008.PAA17357@ietf.org> <41A57095.5AA4@xyzzy.claranet.de> <200411251402.27855.blilly@erols.com> <41A7EA9D.641C@xyzzy.claranet.de> Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 21:29:41 GMT Lines: 61 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <41A7EA9D.641C@xyzzy.claranet.de> Frank Ellermann writes: >Charles Lindsey wrote: >> The requirements for a unique message identifier are: >> 1. That it can safely be regarded as a sequence of bytes >> which can be compared for simple equality >ACK. We could discuss cases-insensitive domains. Please No :-( . Once you have copied your domain, either upper-wise or lower-wise into your message-id, then you are stuck with it that way. >> 3. It SHOULD be human readable over the telephone. >Is that about the effects of NAK or DLE in certain protocols ? >It MUST be printable us-ascii, no nonsense. If it isn't printable, then it isn't readable over the telephone. >> 4. It MAY contain information useful to humans (hence the >> excellent convention of using a domain name or IP address in >> the id-right. >This "convention" is a MUST, otherwise you can't guarantee the >uniqueness. No, there are other ways that can be done. Look at Agent, which routinely uses the same id-right for everybody. And that convention is not a MUST in RFC 2822 (though it is strongly suggested). >> Frank wants to bring in some of C. It would indeed be >> technically sensible to do so, but it would probably be >> politically unwise. >Why's that the case ? We're supposed to get it right, we're >not supposed to copy all bugs from a memo which is already >obsolete, if I got Bruce's remarks about a new 2822bis right. We are going to have trouble enough to get our _essential_ changes into RFC 2822bis. I just don't think pushing our luck with anything further is going to get us anywhere. The IETF is too packed with people who believe that "The Internet Message Format" is some inviolable edifice that we "News" people are refusing to bow down before, and we must be taught our place. But if the WG really wants to follow that route .......... -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 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 iAT0WkbE066852 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 16:32:46 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAT0WkbS066851 for ietf-usefor-skb; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 16:32:46 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from spsystems.net (spsystems.net [216.126.83.115]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAT0Wkgh066547 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 16:32:46 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from henry@spsystems.net) Received: from spsystems.net (henry@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spsystems.net (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id iAT0WLcC022458; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 19:32:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (from henry@localhost) by spsystems.net (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id iAT0WKDf022457; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 19:32:20 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 19:32:20 -0500 (EST) From: Henry Spencer To: Usefor Mailing List Subject: Re: poll methodology In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Sun, 28 Nov 2004, John Stanley wrote: > >If you include, in your list of preferences, the point at which "I could > >live with the ones above this, but not those below", ... > > This assumes an implicit "above" and "below" relationship, which almost > certainly will not exist in the kinds of options that appear in the > USEFOR working group straw polls. Examine any poll we've had, and whenever > anyone has answered "3 is the only acceptable response", you've found > such a case. If you convert that to "anything 3 or less", you are wrong. Note that Charles's divider is to be in *your* list of preferences, not in the list as presented in the question; it divides your list, not the question's list, into two parts. The way the alternatives are numbered is irrelevant. Henry Spencer henry@spsystems.net 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 iAT09L4A031495 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 16:09:21 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAT09LCn031490 for ietf-usefor-skb; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 16:09:21 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from b.mail.peak.org (b.mail.peak.org [69.59.192.42]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAT09KNv031309 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 16:09:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from stanley@peak.org) Received: from a.shell.peak.org ([69.59.192.81]) by b.mail.peak.org (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id iAT09H63075664 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 16:09:19 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 16:09:17 -0800 (PST) From: John Stanley X-X-Sender: stanley@a.shell.peak.org To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: poll methodology Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Score: 0 () X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.39 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: "Charles Lindsey" : >If you include, in your list of preferences, the point at which "I could >live with the ones above this, but not those below", ... This assumes an implicit "above" and "below" relationship, which almost certainly will not exist in the kinds of options that appear in the USEFOR working group straw polls. Examine any poll we've had, and whenever anyone has answered "3 is the only acceptable response", you've found such a case. If you convert that to "anything 3 or less", you are wrong. 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 iASLtJ31037693 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 13:55:19 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iASLtJZo037692 for ietf-usefor-skb; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 13:55:19 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iASLtHMV037661 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 13:55:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CYX0s-0007gr-00 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 22:55:22 +0100 Received: from a077218.dialin.hansenet.de ([213.191.77.218]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 22:55:22 +0100 Received: from nobody by a077218.dialin.hansenet.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 22:55:22 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Does 2231 break MIME 1.0? Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 22:52:19 +0100 Organization: Lines: 42 Message-ID: <41AA4893.3D41@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <200411272238.10271.blilly@erols.com> <41A961B6.1B61@xyzzy.claranet.de> <200411280819.15264.blilly@erols.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: a077218.dialin.hansenet.de X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Bruce Lilly wrote: > You have missed the point; RFC 2231 is part of MIME 1.0. It can't if it's incompatible. You have shown this with: | Content-Type: text/plain ; foo*0=x ; foo*2=z ; foo*0=a ; | foo*1=y ; foo*2=c ; foo*1=b > You're 7 1/2 years too late First of all you found this incompatibility, I missed it, and then it's never too late to find and fix a bug. > You can try to convince others that a different version > which removes the continuation feature should be > established, but that's probably a losing proposition. Quite the contrary, it would be the new MIME version which adds this incompatible restriction as a side-effect of the continuation "feature" (= feature in MIME 2.0, bug in 1.0) > None of the specific examples in RFC 2045 are verbatim > "1.0" due to CFWS. | Messages composed in accordance with this document MUST | include such a header field, with the following verbatim | text: | MIME-Version: 1.0 [...] | NOTE TO IMPLEMENTORS: When checking MIME-Version values any | RFC 822 comment strings that are present must be ignored. Sorry, I still don't see any problem with this specification. > we'll leave it to you to work out in your proposal for 2.0 > which excludes 1.0's parameter continuation. I'm not planning a new version. MIME "1.0" ends with RfC 2049, because RfC 2231 would be incompatible, and you're the crown witness. I'm only a member of the star chamber ;-) Bye, Frank 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 iASLKm61091005 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 13:20:48 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iASLKm0m091004 for ietf-usefor-skb; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 13:20:48 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iASLKkoV090997 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 13:20:46 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CYWTS-0005lW-00 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 22:20:50 +0100 Received: from a077218.dialin.hansenet.de ([213.191.77.218]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 22:20:49 +0100 Received: from nobody by a077218.dialin.hansenet.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 22:20:49 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Does 2231 break MIME 1.0? Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 22:16:18 +0100 Organization: Lines: 139 Message-ID: <41AA4022.29DC@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <200411272213.59057.blilly@erols.com> <41A9589C.2866@xyzzy.claranet.de> <200411280805.29332.blilly@erols.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: a077218.dialin.hansenet.de X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Bruce Lilly wrote: > There is still the fact that parameter order is > insignificant, Alexey wanted multiple URLs, he didn't say "ordered list". > there is almost certainly a preference hierarchy. My uninformed interpretation of... | List-Unsubscribe: | , | ...would be "pick what you like". > RFC 2369 handles that by having most preferred first Yes, they say so. But IMHO my personal preferences as a human user are more important. > Trying to graft MIME parameters onto a non-MIME field > is the problem. Okay, so what do you want ? Injection-Info is no Content-*, can we do whatever pleases us and simply have zero or more complaint-url="URL" with the natural FWS folding ? > Any suggested filename that includes octets outside of > the common part of ANSI X3.4/ISO-8859/ISO-10646 requires > encoding If you extract the common octets from the mentioned standards you'd probably get 0..159, that's already too much for all installed filesystems on my box. And it fails for UTF-8, but 0..127 isn't much better. [FWS allows to fold long URLs] > Yes, such a scheme can be made to work for URIs as an > isolated case. But at the protocol level that we're > discussing, we're not dealing exclusively with URIs; we're > dealing with name/value pairs. Are you saying that RfC 2017 got it wrong ? Is that a matter of the "URL" delimiter, and the in RfC 2369 fixes it ? They simply say "internal whitespace being ignored" in 2369. > It's unclear what you intend I intended to screw up about:mozilla beyond recognition using the *-hacks of RfC 2231. > you can't have double-quotes starting in the middle of a > parameter value Fixing that I get url*0*=us-ascii'en-GB-OED'about%3A; > there's no standard language tag "en-GB-OED" Then let's say url*0*=us-ascii'en-GB-oed'about%3A; or just for fun url*0*=us-ascii'i-klingon'about%3A; > there is no standard scheme named "about" Yes, let's use dict://dict.org/d: instead of about: url*0*=us-ascii'i-klingon'dict%3A%2F%2Fdict.org%2Fd%3A [bad*0* and bad*1 vs. url*0* and url*1*] > it's not clear why you seem to think there is a problem > related to those issues The problem was a hallucination on my side, I didn't see the clear title*2="isn't it!" example in 4.1. So now we have... url*1=mozilla; what=ever; url*0*=us-ascii'i-klingon'dict%3A%2F%2Fdict.org%2Fd%3A ...and still the question "who's supposed to get this right ?" >> The RfC 2231 *-hacks really destroy that beauty. > That's one opinion; 2231 extensions provide necessary > features in a backwards-compatible manner. Minus the problem with multiple parameters, and ignoring the side-effects of using it where some old (resp. simple) MIME implementations don't expect it (as in boundary=) > would you prefer to return to the simple beauty of plain text > only in a subset of ANSI X3.4? Not when I need a multipart/digest in an abuse complaint. ;-) Of course some abuse desks still insist on plain/text, because a script deleting the Content-Type in the main headers on their side if they don't like it would be asking too much. :-( > RFC 2231 has to be taken into account -- it is an amendment > to the MIME specification which has gone through the IETF > process (including consultation with developers). It can be still incompatible resp. a PITA, and some ideas just don't fly. > Splitting a long boundary parameter to keep lines within the > recommended maximum length is a perfectly reasonable thing to > do. Our definitions of "perfectly reasonable" are different, in my definition there's a "if it can cause harm just don't do it". > The authors of RFCs 2184 and 231 are also authors of the > core MIME RFCs. RFCs 2045-2049 are dated November 1996; > 2184 is dated August 1997 and 2231 is dated November 1997. > Yes, that's "later", but not by much 2045 is based on 1521 (September 1993) resp. 1341 (June 1992), and 5 years are IMHO too much to introduce "extensions" which turn out to be incompatibilities. In the case of v=spf1 "we" (a "tinw" known as SPF community) have a problem with 6 months. [message/partial] > It's an issue that isn't going to go away. 20 seconds of > high-definition video (at 1.5 Gb/s) is 3.75 GB. I suspect > that you'd have a hard time sending that in one chunk. Yes, it's more than my entire harddisk space. You could try an external body with HTTP/1.1 chunking if you insist on it, for message/partial you'd better check the routing before. [RfC 1344, Content-Conversion] > It was a dead end, never standardized The future 3864 registry apparently allows status "historic", the RfC editor page claims status "informational" for RfC 1344. Bye, Frank 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 iASDJHtH075583 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 05:19:17 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iASDJHE1075582 for ietf-usefor-skb; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 05:19:17 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from ns4.townisp.com (ns4a.townisp.com [216.195.0.138]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iASDJHXS075548 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 05:19:17 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from blilly@erols.com) Received: from mail.blilly.com (dhcp-0-8-a1-c-fa-f7.cpe.townisp.com [216.49.158.220]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ns4.townisp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2FC129909; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 08:19:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.blilly.com with ESMTP id iASDJG8x026531(8.12.10/8.12.10/mail.blilly.com sendmail.mc.mail 1.18 2004/05/15 07:23:45) ; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 08:19:17 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by marty.blilly.com with ESMTP id iASDJGCY026530(8.12.10/8.12.10/blilly.com submit.mc 1.1 2003/08/26 22:21:33) ; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 08:19:16 -0500 From: Bruce Lilly Reply-To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Organization: Bruce Lilly To: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Does 2231 break MIME 1.0? Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 08:19:14 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 Cc: ietf-usefor@imc.org References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <200411272238.10271.blilly@erols.com> <41A961B6.1B61@xyzzy.claranet.de> In-Reply-To: <41A961B6.1B61@xyzzy.claranet.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200411280819.15264.blilly@erols.com> Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Sun November 28 2004 00:27, Frank Ellermann wrote: > > Bruce Lilly wrote: > > > You seem to have missed the point > > No. My point was that moving the incompatible *-hacks to a > new MIME version kills them for good for this century. You have missed the point; RFC 2231 is part of MIME 1.0. You're 7 1/2 years too late (and even then, it would have been unlikely to have had a different MIME version). You can try to convince others that a different version which removes the continuation feature should be established, but that's probably a losing proposition. > > There is no provision for a MIME 1.0-compliant product > > when it encounters a different MIME-version; what should > > it do? Revert to non-MIME handling of messages? > > Sure, what else. Garbage in, garbage out. Well, if you really feel so strongly that a new version which removes parameter continuation, but is otherwise the same as MIME 1.0 is desirable, go ahead and propose it. Bear in mind that that means that for all practical purposes, you'll be limited to sending plain text in ANSI X3.4 for the foreseeable future, since that's what "non-MIME handling" entails. > > The semantics for MIME-Version numbers are unclear > > What is unclear about "verbatim text", as defined in RfC 1521, > especially marked as clarification of 1341 ? If "2.0" has a > problem with "02.0" or "2.00", then it can say so. But "1.0" > is the one and only format for "1.0". None of the specific examples in RFC 2045 are verbatim "1.0" due to CFWS. > > What happens when versions are mixed in the same > > message (e.g. nested message types, multipart types)? > > Let "2.0" solve its own problems, for "1.0" it's irrelevant. Well, I guess we'll leave it to you to work out in your proposal for 2.0 which excludes 1.0's parameter continuation. 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 iASD5cMF049005 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 05:05:38 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iASD5cOJ049004 for ietf-usefor-skb; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 05:05:38 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from ns1.townisp.com (ns1a.townisp.com [216.195.0.132]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iASD5bp2048963 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 05:05:38 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from blilly@erols.com) Received: from mail.blilly.com (dhcp-0-8-a1-c-fa-f7.cpe.townisp.com [216.49.158.220]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ns1.townisp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91E8B2991F; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 08:05:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.blilly.com with ESMTP id iASD5Y4Z026382(8.12.10/8.12.10/mail.blilly.com sendmail.mc.mail 1.18 2004/05/15 07:23:45) ; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 08:05:34 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by marty.blilly.com with ESMTP id iASD5WaK026381(8.12.10/8.12.10/blilly.com submit.mc 1.1 2003/08/26 22:21:33) ; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 08:05:33 -0500 From: Bruce Lilly Reply-To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Organization: Bruce Lilly To: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Does 2231 break MIME 1.0? Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 08:05:28 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 Cc: ietf-usefor@imc.org References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <200411272213.59057.blilly@erols.com> <41A9589C.2866@xyzzy.claranet.de> In-Reply-To: <41A9589C.2866@xyzzy.claranet.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200411280805.29332.blilly@erols.com> Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Sat November 27 2004 23:48, Frank Ellermann wrote: > > Bruce Lilly wrote: > > > There simply aren't any cases where a Content-Type or > > Content-Disposition field needs multiple parameters with > > the same attribute name. > > Yes. But we're talking about an URL in Injection-Info here, > or other cases where more than one value could make sense. There is still the fact that parameter order is insignificant, whereas in the case of multiple URIs with different schemes, there is almost certainly a preference hierarchy. RFC 2369 handles that by having most preferred first, and uses a mechanism where order can be defined as significant. > Or do you propose to ignore 2231 in these cases, because > it's irrelevant for anything not starting with Content-*: ? Trying to graft MIME parameters onto a non-MIME field is the problem. It's a problem for implementors, and it's a problem for instances like this. It's also unnecessary, as there are other extensible ways of handling name/value pairs in message header trace fields. > > there are cases where charset or language need to be > > indicated > > Let's say "can be", because it doesn't work well for the > filename= case depending on the native filesystem. > > I've found a way to generate Latin-1 filenames on my HPFS, > which causes a nice dead loop when I change the codepage > back to 850. Okay, it's broken and I own the pieces, but > something like a universal concept of filename simply does > not exist yet. Any suggested filename that includes octets outside of the common part of ANSI X3.4/ISO-8859/ISO-10646 requires encoding, and interpretation of encoded content by the recipient requires an indication of the charset. Likewise for charsets which do not share such a common subset, such as EBCDIC. > > URIs can be quite long; they're a good example of why > > continuation parameters are useful (and the continuation > > example in RFC 2231 *is* a URI). > > They don't have embedded WS, therefore the simple rule to > insert resp. remove FWS is much better than the *-hack for > URLs. Yes, such a scheme can be made to work for URIs as an isolated case. But at the protocol level that we're discussing, we're not dealing exclusively with URIs; we're dealing with name/value pairs. Interpretation of such a pair as a URI occurs at a different protocol level. At *this* protocol level, things need to be specified in a manner that works for name/value pairs in general, not just for one isolated case. > url*1*=mozilla; what=ever; url*0*=us-ascii'en-GB-OED'"about:"; > > Who's supposed to get this right ? If it's correct, of course > you can't create it in this order, but apparently you should > accept it. Or what about a relatively harmless > > bad*0*=us-ascii'en-GB-OED'"about:"; bad*1=mozilla; > url*0*=us-ascii'en-GB-OED'"about:"; url*1*=mozilla; > > Apparently only the latter is allowed. I'd simply refuse to > implement it, it goes against all my professional instincts. It's unclear what you intend; there are so many problems with your examples: 1. you can't have double-quotes starting in the middle of a parameter value; you can quote the entire value, except for an extended-initial-value, where tspecials and certain other content must be encoded 2. there's no standard language tag "en-GB-OED"; at minimum the third component is going to be implementation-dependent 3. if you're trying to convey a URI, there is no standard scheme named "about" 4. foo*1*=bar and foo*1=bar are equivalent (but foo*1*=b%61r and foo*1=b%61r are not. Since your last pair of examples differs only in attribute name and trailing asterisk in an extended-other-name whose corresponding value consists entirely of (legal) attribute-chars, it's not clear why you seem to think there is a problem related to those issues (in fact both lines have problems because of the preceding three issues affecting the first parameters in each line). > I really love MIME, it's the best standard I know (okay, that > collection is somewhat limited, but I'd need more than hands > and feet ;-) The RfC 2231 *-hacks really destroy that beauty. That's one opinion; 2231 extensions provide necessary features in a backwards-compatible manner. As MIME itself provded necessary features in a backwards-compatible manner. Or would you prefer to return to the simple beauty of plain text only in a subset of ANSI X3.4? > > And charset and language tags will also be necessary for the > > IRI crowd. > > Not that I'm aware of, it's IDN for servers and percent-encoded > UTF-8 for anything else. Any charset other than the default, including utf-8, needs to be indicated with an appropriate charset tag; otherwise there's no way to know *which* non-default charset is being represented by the encoding. > > Sorry, no. Any process that needs to examine MIME body parts > > needs to do so properly, and that includes handling RFC 2231 > > continuation parameters. > > IBTD. The proper way is to ignore RfC 2231, "Proper way" for *what*? If you're trying to parse a message's Content-Type or Content-Disposition field's parameters, RFC 2231 has to be taken into account -- it is an amendment to the MIME specification which has gone through the IETF process (including consultation with developers). > and treat anything > trying to use it for folding as spam. You can treat all messages as spam if you like; for many people that would result in fewer errors than treating no messages as spam. Most people would be dissatisfied by either extreme approach. > You cannot mess around > with a MIME boundary=, it's the same madness like NO-WS-CTL in > a Message-ID. Protocols ought to be robust. Both protocols are robust as designed; there are, however, plenty of shoddy implementations to point fingers at. MIME multipart boundary delimiters can contain spaces, and may be as long as 70 octets (unencoded, and excluding the double hyphens). They may also contain other characters which would have to be encoded or placed in a quoted parameter value. "Boundary" is eight octets. Syntactic glue adds more length, which may exceed what SHOULD be permitted as the maximum line length. Splitting a long boundary parameter to kep lines within the recommended maximum length is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. In the case of a boundary value containing space characters (e.g. "Next part"), encoding each space character as %20 (which adds length) to avoid breakage by shoddy implementations of transport agents and gateways is also perfectly reasonable. > > Vendors who cut corners by half-assed approaches to MIME > > messages have already caused problems: > > It's not the implementors who caused these problems, but the > authors of RfCs like 2231 and 2184. You just don't break any > conforming implementations by adding "extensions" later, that's > why there is a version number. In the specific instance cited, it is absolutely poor vendor implementations (ignoring RFC 1344) that caused problems. The authors of RFCs 2184 and 231 are also authors of the core MIME RFCs. RFCs 2045-2049 are dated November 1996; 2184 is dated August 1997 and 2231 is dated November 1997. Yes, that's "later", but not by much, and was done with community input and review. You still seem to have some trouble understanding the problems associated with MIME version numbering... > > http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/836088 > > Quotes: 'Block "message/partial" MIME Types' > 'Disable Message Reassembly' > > That's essentially the same line I used against the *-hacks. That's the approach taken by some vendors. "Throw the baby out with the bath water" is *an* approach. Neither is useful. > > And that's (well) after RFC 1344 specifically mentioned > > gateway issues related to MIME. > > Yes. it's an old problem, some nets limited the mail size It's an issue that isn't going to go away. 20 seconds of high-definition video (at 1.5 Gb/s) is 3.75 GB. I suspect that you'd have a hard time sending that in one chunk. > Content-Conversion is interesting, it's apparently not listed > in draft-klyne-hdrreg-mail-05.txt It was a dead end, never standardized; RFC 3297 specifies a mechanism which can accommodate the desires of both sender and recipient. 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 iAS5RxTT083292 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 21:27:59 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAS5Rxe3083287 for ietf-usefor-skb; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 21:27:59 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAS5Rv1J083247 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 21:27:57 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CYHbQ-0003sr-00 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 06:28:04 +0100 Received: from 213.191.80.203 ([213.191.80.203]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 06:28:04 +0100 Received: from nobody by 213.191.80.203 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 06:28:04 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Does 2231 break MIME 1.0? Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 06:27:18 +0100 Organization: Lines: 27 Message-ID: <41A961B6.1B61@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <01LHQ6PD5QTO00005R@mauve.mrochek.com> <41A93947.1CF5@xyzzy.claranet.de> <200411272238.10271.blilly@erols.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.191.80.203 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Bruce Lilly wrote: > You seem to have missed the point No. My point was that moving the incompatible *-hacks to a new MIME version kills them for good for this century. > There is no provision for a MIME 1.0-compliant product > when it encounters a different MIME-version; what should > it do? Revert to non-MIME handling of messages? Sure, what else. Garbage in, garbage out. > The semantics for MIME-Version numbers are unclear What is unclear about "verbatim text", as defined in RfC 1521, especially marked as clarification of 1341 ? If "2.0" has a problem with "02.0" or "2.00", then it can say so. But "1.0" is the one and only format for "1.0". > What happens when versions are mixed in the same > message (e.g. nested message types, multipart types)? Let "2.0" solve its own problems, for "1.0" it's irrelevant. Bye, Frank 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 iAS4vEBY035631 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 20:57:14 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAS4vEY1035630 for ietf-usefor-skb; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 20:57:14 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAS4vCQW035572 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 20:57:13 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CYH7f-0002Nk-00 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 05:57:19 +0100 Received: from 213.191.80.203 ([213.191.80.203]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 05:57:19 +0100 Received: from nobody by 213.191.80.203 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 05:57:19 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Does 2231 break MIME 1.0? Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 05:48:28 +0100 Organization: Lines: 103 Message-ID: <41A9589C.2866@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <200411270759.47926.blilly@erols.com> <41A9300F.7789@xyzzy.claranet.de> <200411272213.59057.blilly@erols.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.191.80.203 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Bruce Lilly wrote: > There simply aren't any cases where a Content-Type or > Content-Disposition field needs multiple parameters with > the same attribute name. Yes. But we're talking about an URL in Injection-Info here, or other cases where more than one value could make sense. Or do you propose to ignore 2231 in these cases, because it's irrelevant for anything not starting with Content-*: ? > there are cases where charset or language need to be > indicated Let's say "can be", because it doesn't work well for the filename= case depending on the native filesystem. I've found a way to generate Latin-1 filenames on my HPFS, which causes a nice dead loop when I change the codepage back to 850. Okay, it's broken and I own the pieces, but something like a universal concept of filename simply does not exist yet. > URIs can be quite long; they're a good example of why > continuation parameters are useful (and the continuation > example in RFC 2231 *is* a URI). They don't have embedded WS, therefore the simple rule to insert resp. remove FWS is much better than the *-hack for URLs. I trust that some implementations get FWS folding right, but I don't believe in the *-hack: url*1*=mozilla; what=ever; url*0*=us-ascii'en-GB-OED'"about:"; Who's supposed to get this right ? If it's correct, of course you can't create it in this order, but apparently you should accept it. Or what about a relatively harmless bad*0*=us-ascii'en-GB-OED'"about:"; bad*1=mozilla; url*0*=us-ascii'en-GB-OED'"about:"; url*1*=mozilla; Apparently only the latter is allowed. I'd simply refuse to implement it, it goes against all my professional instincts. I really love MIME, it's the best standard I know (okay, that collection is somewhat limited, but I'd need more than hands and feet ;-) The RfC 2231 *-hacks really destroy that beauty. > And charset and language tags will also be necessary for the > IRI crowd. Not that I'm aware of, it's IDN for servers and percent-encoded UTF-8 for anything else. Sure, the language tags make sense, chapters 4 and 5 (minus 4.1) in RfC 2231 are fine, or at least tolerable. But the folding rules are not. Fortunately they are unnecessary for URLs. > Sorry, no. Any process that needs to examine MIME body parts > needs to do so properly, and that includes handling RFC 2231 > continuation parameters. IBTD. The proper way is to ignore RfC 2231, and treat anything trying to use it for folding as spam. You cannot mess around with a MIME boundary=, it's the same madness like NO-WS-CTL in a Message-ID. Protocols ought to be robust. > Vendors who cut corners by half-assed approaches to MIME > messages have already caused problems: It's not the implementors who caused these problems, but the authors of RfCs like 2231 and 2184. You just don't break any conforming implementations by adding "extensions" later, that's why there is a version number. It's a PITA, I can see it for the "1" in v=spf1, but it won't go away by pretending that the whole world "upgrades" their perfectly working software. > http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/836088 Quotes: 'Block "message/partial" MIME Types' 'Disable Message Reassembly' That's essentially the same line I used against the *-hacks. Please note that I'm not one of the majority shooting any MIME multipart on sight. Quite the contrary, I like MIME. But some of its "features" aren't "KISS", and that's the precise moment when it breaks sooner or later, if too many users get it wrong or abuse it. > And that's (well) after RFC 1344 specifically mentioned > gateway issues related to MIME. Yes. it's an old problem, some nets limited the mail size, and that's probably still an issue in binary newsgroups, as far as they don't use yenc :-| Content-Conversion is interesting, it's apparently not listed in draft-klyne-hdrreg-mail-05.txt Bye, Frank 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 iAS3c9A9013157 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 19:38:09 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAS3c9wE013156 for ietf-usefor-skb; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 19:38:09 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from ns2.townisp.com (ns2a.townisp.com [216.195.0.134]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAS3c88L013126 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 19:38:08 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from blilly@erols.com) Received: from mail.blilly.com (dhcp-0-8-a1-c-fa-f7.cpe.townisp.com [216.49.158.220]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ns2.townisp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFF0229920; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 22:38:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.blilly.com with ESMTP id iAS3cDES020130(8.12.10/8.12.10/mail.blilly.com sendmail.mc.mail 1.18 2004/05/15 07:23:45) ; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 22:38:13 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by marty.blilly.com with ESMTP id iAS3cBMh020129(8.12.10/8.12.10/blilly.com submit.mc 1.1 2003/08/26 22:21:33) ; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 22:38:12 -0500 From: Bruce Lilly Reply-To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Organization: Bruce Lilly To: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Does 2231 break MIME 1.0? Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 22:38:09 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 Cc: ietf-usefor@imc.org, ned.freed@mrochek.com References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <01LHQ6PD5QTO00005R@mauve.mrochek.com> <41A93947.1CF5@xyzzy.claranet.de> In-Reply-To: <41A93947.1CF5@xyzzy.claranet.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200411272238.10271.blilly@erols.com> Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Sat November 27 2004 21:34, Frank Ellermann wrote: > > ned.freed@mrochek.com wrote: > > we botched the versioning thing rather badly, so we're pretty > > much stuck with 1.0 forever. > > Now here's a reason to move the worst *-hacks to a new version, You seem to have missed the point; there almost certainly won't be a new version; among the issues preventing it are: 1. There is no provision for a MIME 1.0-compliant product when it encounters a different MIME-version; what should it do? Revert to non-MIME handling of messages? If not, which specific MIME 1.0 constructs should be handled differently by such a product in those circumstances? 2. The semantics for MIME-Version numbers are unclear; RFC 2045 merely says that there are two integer fields: is "001.000" equivalent to "1.0" (leading zeroes)? 3. What happens when versions are mixed in the same message (e.g. nested message types, multipart types)? MIME-Version fields are only valid at the top-level message header and in encapsulated message type headers. 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 iAS3E5Ok075517 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 19:14:05 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAS3E5HZ075514 for ietf-usefor-skb; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 19:14:05 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from ns2.townisp.com (ns2a.townisp.com [216.195.0.134]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAS3E5Ss075315 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 19:14:05 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from blilly@erols.com) Received: from mail.blilly.com (dhcp-0-8-a1-c-fa-f7.cpe.townisp.com [216.49.158.220]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ns2.townisp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1AC62990A; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 22:14:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.blilly.com with ESMTP id iAS3E3ro019810(8.12.10/8.12.10/mail.blilly.com sendmail.mc.mail 1.18 2004/05/15 07:23:45) ; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 22:14:03 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by marty.blilly.com with ESMTP id iAS3E1mj019808(8.12.10/8.12.10/blilly.com submit.mc 1.1 2003/08/26 22:21:33) ; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 22:14:03 -0500 From: Bruce Lilly Reply-To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Organization: Bruce Lilly To: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Does 2231 break MIME 1.0? Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 22:13:58 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 Cc: ietf-usefor@imc.org References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <200411270759.47926.blilly@erols.com> <41A9300F.7789@xyzzy.claranet.de> In-Reply-To: <41A9300F.7789@xyzzy.claranet.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200411272213.59057.blilly@erols.com> Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Sat November 27 2004 20:55, Frank Ellermann wrote: > > Bruce Lilly wrote: > > > it's part of MIME; the first "word" in its title is "MIME". > > But the seventh word is "extensions", and your example showed > that some of these *-hacks are not compatible with non-unique > MIME 1.0 parameters. It was added as an afterthoght, and it > doesn't work for this case. There simply aren't any cases where a Content-Type or Content-Disposition field needs multiple parameters with the same attribute name. There are cases where long parameters need to be split to avoid problems. (And there are cases where charset or language need to be indicated). > > A new MIME version number is unlikely. > > Removing the general *-folding could solve the problem That's not going to do anything about the version number problems. > restricting it to parameters where it's explicitly allowed > and potentially necessary (e.g. filename= but not for URIs). URIs can be quite long; they're a good example of why continuation parameters are useful (and the continuation example in RFC 2231 *is* a URI). And charset and language tags will also be necessary for the IRI crowd. > Something like boundary*= / boundary*0= / boundary*0*= could > be really dangerous, if it's (ab)used to bypass spam filters. Sorry, no. Any process that needs to examine MIME body parts needs to do so properly, and that includes handling RFC 2231 continuation parameters. Vendors who cut corners by half-assed approaches to MIME messages have already caused problems: http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/836088 And that's (well) after RFC 1344 specifically mentioned gateway issues related to MIME. 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 iAS2axTq016229 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 18:36:59 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAS2axUB016228 for ietf-usefor-skb; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 18:36:59 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAS2avZO016184 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 18:36:58 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CYEvv-0004DB-00 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 03:37:03 +0100 Received: from 213.191.80.203 ([213.191.80.203]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 03:37:03 +0100 Received: from nobody by 213.191.80.203 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 03:37:03 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Does 2231 break MIME 1.0? Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 03:34:47 +0100 Organization: Lines: 39 Message-ID: <41A93947.1CF5@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <200411262213.17632.blilly@erols.com> <41A8081D.611D@xyzzy.claranet.de> <200411270759.47926.blilly@erols.com> <01LHQ6PD5QTO00005R@mauve.mrochek.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org Cc: ned.freed@mrochek.com X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.191.80.203 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: ned.freed@mrochek.com wrote: >> the first "word" in its title is "MIME". > Indeed. It's incompatible with non-unique parameters, it works only for a proper subset of legal MIME - as far as it's implemented correctly anywhere, I've heard that Opera tried this, and that others try to use encoded words where it's definitely wrong. >> the issue of uniqueness will be addressed. > Yep. The intent was always that parameters be unique. In the case discussed here non-unique parameters make sense. Of course we could avoid it somehow, but it's more "KISS" with zero or more complaints-url= parameters. Same reasoning as in Martin's proposed Archived-At:, where he came to the conclusion that one URI per Archived-At: is the way to go (plus allowing more than one of these header fields). > we botched the versioning thing rather badly, so we're pretty > much stuck with 1.0 forever. Now here's a reason to move the worst *-hacks to a new version, and then forget it for the next decades, until the whole world uses Unicode filesystems, or whatever they'll do in 2050. > If 2231 ever gets revised adding something along the lines of > "SHOULD NOT use these encodings unnecessarily" seems like a > good idea too. Or maybe even make it a MUST NOT... You could make it a "MUST NOT ... unless explicitly allowed for the affected parameter". Bruce has demonstrated that it cannot be allowed for non-unique parameters, and it would be an awful security loophole for boundary= Bye, Frank 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 iAS1vNtr053198 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 17:57:23 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAS1vNPv053197 for ietf-usefor-skb; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 17:57:23 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAS1vJRC052875 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 17:57:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CYEJG-00027J-00 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 02:57:06 +0100 Received: from 213.191.80.203 ([213.191.80.203]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 02:57:06 +0100 Received: from nobody by 213.191.80.203 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 02:57:06 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Does 2231 break MIME 1.0? Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 02:55:27 +0100 Organization: Lines: 20 Message-ID: <41A9300F.7789@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <200411262213.17632.blilly@erols.com> <41A8081D.611D@xyzzy.claranet.de> <200411270759.47926.blilly@erols.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.191.80.203 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Bruce Lilly wrote: > it's part of MIME; the first "word" in its title is "MIME". But the seventh word is "extensions", and your example showed that some of these *-hacks are not compatible with non-unique MIME 1.0 parameters. It was added as an afterthoght, and it doesn't work for this case. > A new MIME version number is unlikely. Removing the general *-folding could solve the problem, or restricting it to parameters where it's explicitly allowed and potentially necessary (e.g. filename= but not for URIs). Something like boundary*= / boundary*0= / boundary*0*= could be really dangerous, if it's (ab)used to bypass spam filters. Bye, Frank 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 iARJfiqx021076 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 11:41:44 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iARJfiqm021073 for ietf-usefor-skb; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 11:41:44 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from spsystems.net (spsystems.net [216.126.83.115]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iARJfhq4020800 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 11:41:43 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from henry@spsystems.net) Received: from spsystems.net (henry@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spsystems.net (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id iARJfPcC003313; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 14:41:25 -0500 (EST) Received: (from henry@localhost) by spsystems.net (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id iARJfPls003312; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 14:41:25 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 14:41:24 -0500 (EST) From: Henry Spencer To: Usefor Mailing List Subject: Re: msg-id In-Reply-To: <41A7EA9D.641C@xyzzy.claranet.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Sat, 27 Nov 2004, Frank Ellermann wrote: > > 2. It MUST be unique, or with astronomical probabilities > > against accidental construction of duplicates. > > No qualifier, no MD5 hacks, unique forever. It's the problem > of the domain owner and his software how they manage this... Concur. There is just no reason to add weasel words that permit duplicates, given that methods for guaranteed uniqueness are well known and not difficult to implement. If unusual situations, e.g. multi-point gatewaying problems, might occasionally involve compromising on this, that is best treated as a difficult-to-fix-and-not-too-harmful bug in that software, not as something the standard should bless. Henry Spencer henry@spsystems.net 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 iARJFc10083489 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 11:15:38 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iARJFcBe083488 for ietf-usefor-skb; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 11:15:38 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [209.55.107.55]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iARJFbDo083112 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 11:15:37 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from ned.freed@mrochek.com) Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01LHKCWTZQJ400005R@mauve.mrochek.com> for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 11:15:25 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 11:08:55 -0800 (PST) From: ned.freed@mrochek.com Subject: Re: Does 2231 break MIME 1.0? (was: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed?) In-reply-to: "Your message dated Sat, 27 Nov 2004 07:59:47 -0500" <200411270759.47926.blilly@erols.com> To: Bruce Lilly Cc: Frank Ellermann , ietf-usefor@imc.org Message-id: <01LHQ6PD5QTO00005R@mauve.mrochek.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <200411262213.17632.blilly@erols.com> <41A8081D.611D@xyzzy.claranet.de> <200411270759.47926.blilly@erols.com> Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: > On Fri November 26 2004 23:52, Frank Ellermann wrote: > > Oops, RfC 2231 breaks MIME 1.0, > No, it's part of MIME; the first "word" in its title is "MIME". Indeed. > > What next, submit a 2231bis with a new MIME version, > > where all parameters must be unique per header-field ? > Ned said that he intends to revise the MIME documents, > and there are drafts of some parts. He has said that the > issue of uniqueness will be addressed. Yep. The intent was always that parameters be unique. Things that are obvious to everyone involved at the time can sometimes slip through the cracks and not get covered in the specification. > A new MIME version number is unlikely. Yes, well, we botched the versioning thing rather badly, so we're pretty much stuck with 1.0 forever. Ned P.S. If 2231 ever gets revised adding something along the lines of "SHOULD NOT use these encodings unnecessarily" seems like a good idea too. Or maybe even make it a MUST NOT... 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 iARCxwRk021558 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 04:59:58 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iARCxw3p021555 for ietf-usefor-skb; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 04:59:58 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from ns4.townisp.com (ns4a.townisp.com [216.195.0.138]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iARCxvvH021303 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 04:59:58 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from blilly@erols.com) Received: from mail.blilly.com (dhcp-0-8-a1-c-fa-f7.cpe.townisp.com [216.49.158.220]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ns4.townisp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5BD829926; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 07:59:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.blilly.com with ESMTP id iARCxpUo004084(8.12.10/8.12.10/mail.blilly.com sendmail.mc.mail 1.18 2004/05/15 07:23:45) ; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 07:59:51 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by marty.blilly.com with ESMTP id iARCxnt6004083(8.12.10/8.12.10/blilly.com submit.mc 1.1 2003/08/26 22:21:33) ; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 07:59:50 -0500 From: Bruce Lilly Reply-To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Organization: Bruce Lilly To: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Does 2231 break MIME 1.0? (was: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed?) Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 07:59:47 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 Cc: ietf-usefor@imc.org References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <200411262213.17632.blilly@erols.com> <41A8081D.611D@xyzzy.claranet.de> In-Reply-To: <41A8081D.611D@xyzzy.claranet.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200411270759.47926.blilly@erols.com> Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Fri November 26 2004 23:52, Frank Ellermann wrote: > Oops, RfC 2231 breaks MIME 1.0, No, it's part of MIME; the first "word" in its title is "MIME". > What next, submit a 2231bis with a new MIME version, > where all parameters must be unique per header-field ? Ned said that he intends to revise the MIME documents, and there are drafts of some parts. He has said that the issue of uniqueness will be addressed. A new MIME version number is unlikely. 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 iAR4vsVZ033631 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 20:57:54 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAR4vseV033629 for ietf-usefor-skb; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 20:57:54 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAR4vnrU033308 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 20:57:50 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CXuec-0000iw-00 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 05:57:50 +0100 Received: from 212.82.251.23 ([212.82.251.23]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 05:57:50 +0100 Received: from nobody by 212.82.251.23 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 05:57:50 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Does 2231 break MIME 1.0? (was: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed?) Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 05:52:45 +0100 Organization: Lines: 26 Message-ID: <41A8081D.611D@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <200411261106.09430.blilly@erols.com> <41A7E0F6.7590@xyzzy.claranet.de> <200411262213.17632.blilly@erols.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.82.251.23 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Bruce Lilly wrote: > A moment's thought should convince you that given two > parameters with the same attribute name foo, you will > be unable to reassemble fragments: > Content-Type: text/plain ; foo*0=x ; foo*2=z ; foo*0=a ; > foo*1=y ; foo*2=c ; foo*1=b Oops, RfC 2231 breaks MIME 1.0, it's not only obscure, it's dead (for this version of MIME). > Clearly that isn't practical Yes. Somehow they "forgot" to mention this "minor detail" in RfC 2231. But you caught them red-handed. > http://www.imc.org/ietf-822/mail-archive/msg04115.html The magic=on ; magic=off discussion, I recall it vaguely. What next, submit a 2231bis with a new MIME version, where all parameters must be unique per header-field ? Bye, Frank 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 iAR3DGLr056462 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 19:13:16 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAR3DG3U056461 for ietf-usefor-skb; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 19:13:16 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from ns3.townisp.com (ns3a.townisp.com [216.195.0.136]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAR3DFJo056422 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 19:13:15 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from blilly@erols.com) Received: from mail.blilly.com (dhcp-0-8-a1-c-fa-f7.cpe.townisp.com [216.49.158.220]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ns3.townisp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3496129912; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 22:13:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.blilly.com with ESMTP id iAR3DJ6X024705(8.12.10/8.12.10/mail.blilly.com sendmail.mc.mail 1.18 2004/05/15 07:23:45) ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 22:13:20 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by marty.blilly.com with ESMTP id iAR3DIx4024704(8.12.10/8.12.10/blilly.com submit.mc 1.1 2003/08/26 22:21:33) ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 22:13:19 -0500 From: Bruce Lilly Reply-To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Organization: Bruce Lilly To: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 22:13:17 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 Cc: ietf-usefor@imc.org References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <200411261106.09430.blilly@erols.com> <41A7E0F6.7590@xyzzy.claranet.de> In-Reply-To: <41A7E0F6.7590@xyzzy.claranet.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200411262213.17632.blilly@erols.com> Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Fri November 26 2004 21:05, Frank Ellermann wrote: > > Bruce Lilly wrote: > > > If one is going to use MIME-like parameters, that's exactly > > wrong; one may not have multiple parameters with the same > > attribute name. > > Where does it say so ? I really tried to check this before I > posted here (it's an "obvious" problem ;-) and found no rule > against it... within 5 minutes A moment's thought should convince you that given two parameters with the same attribute name foo, you will be unable to reassemble fragments: Content-Type: text/plain ; foo*0=x ; foo*2=z ; foo*0=a ; foo*1=y ; foo*2=c ; foo*1=b Clearly that isn't practical, and the intent is certainly that there can only be one parameter with a given attribute name per field. This was discussed not so long ago on the ietf-822 mailing list; see http://www.imc.org/ietf-822/mail-archive/msg04115.html for more. 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 iAR2nkTm018891 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 18:49:46 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAR2nkbk018890 for ietf-usefor-skb; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 18:49:46 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAR2nVfn018852 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 18:49:45 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CXseX-0002ff-00 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 03:49:37 +0100 Received: from 212.82.251.23 ([212.82.251.23]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 03:49:37 +0100 Received: from nobody by 212.82.251.23 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 03:49:37 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: msg-id Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 03:46:53 +0100 Organization: Lines: 57 Message-ID: <41A7EA9D.641C@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <200411232008.PAA17357@ietf.org> <41A57095.5AA4@xyzzy.claranet.de> <200411251402.27855.blilly@erols.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.82.251.23 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Charles Lindsey wrote: > The requirements for a unique message identifier are: > 1. That it can safely be regarded as a sequence of bytes > which can be compared for simple equality ACK. We could discuss cases-insensitive domains. > 2. It MUST be unique, or with astronomical probabilities > against accidental construction of duplicates. No qualifier, no MD5 hacks, unique forever. It's the problem of the domain owner and his software how they manage this, but they MUST NOT disturb other domains with their "solutions". > 3. It SHOULD be human readable over the telephone. Is that about the effects of NAK or DLE in certain protocols ? It MUST be printable us-ascii, no nonsense. > 4. It MAY contain information useful to humans (hence the > excellent convention of using a domain name or IP address in > the id-right. This "convention" is a MUST, otherwise you can't guarantee the uniqueness. > 5. It SHOULD NOT be cluttered with unnecessary conventions > requiring certain characters to be quoted or within > quoted-strings. ACK, although I tend to MUST NOT here. You forgot the new 6: It SHOULD work in a news URL without too much ado. Anything like news:%2F%1B[2J%2F@invalid is madness. > A. The RFC 2822 convention as it stands is unacceptable. That's putting it very mildly. > B. We could make the minimum change (restriction) that will > ensure that the Netnews protocols work. That's what you did, and I'm very unhapy with the result. You probably got it right, but nobody else will. > Frank wants to bring in some of C. It would indeed be > technically sensible to do so, but it would probably be > politically unwise. Why's that the case ? We're supposed to get it right, we're not supposed to copy all bugs from a memo which is already obsolete, if I got Bruce's remarks about a new 2822bis right. Bye, Frank 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 iAR2D1FK095639 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 18:13:01 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAR2D1hh095636 for ietf-usefor-skb; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 18:13:01 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAR2CwAq095455 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 18:12:58 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CXs58-0000Cf-00 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 03:13:02 +0100 Received: from 212.82.251.23 ([212.82.251.23]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 03:13:02 +0100 Received: from nobody by 212.82.251.23 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 03:13:02 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 03:12:33 +0100 Organization: Lines: 11 Message-ID: <41A7E291.6B8@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <87sm7qwnse.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <200411201119.32742.blilly@erols.com> <41A5CE50.8020307@isode.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.82.251.23 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Charles Lindsey wrote: > one of the advantages of a Complaints-To header over a > parameter of Injection-Info is that it would be suitable > for use in Emails, if the email community wants to use it. Good point, but OTOH it's easier to get rid of _one_ bogus Injection-Info than to check multiple headers for forgeries. Bye, Frank 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 iAR26J3r084380 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 18:06:19 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAR26JSP084378 for ietf-usefor-skb; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 18:06:19 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAR26GWg084063 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 18:06:17 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CXrya-0008D1-00 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 03:06:16 +0100 Received: from 212.82.251.23 ([212.82.251.23]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 03:06:15 +0100 Received: from nobody by 212.82.251.23 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 03:06:15 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 03:05:42 +0100 Organization: Lines: 12 Message-ID: <41A7E0F6.7590@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <41A6471E.870@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41A73BB3.7060307@isode.com> <200411261106.09430.blilly@erols.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.82.251.23 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Bruce Lilly wrote: > If one is going to use MIME-like parameters, that's exactly > wrong; one may not have multiple parameters with the same > attribute name. Where does it say so ? I really tried to check this before I posted here (it's an "obvious" problem ;-) and found no rule against it... within 5 minutes Bye, Frank 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 iAQHCY6G067119 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 09:12:34 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAQHCYA7067104 for ietf-usefor-skb; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 09:12:34 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp800.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp800.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.142]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id iAQHCWm8066858 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 09:12:32 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-76-118.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.76.118 with poptime) by smtp800.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 26 Nov 2004 17:12:29 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id iAQCCQG13639 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 12:12:26 GMT To: LIST: ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20333 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: Is this a STraw Poll? (was Standardize Complaints-To as deployed) Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <87oeicrzj4.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87r7n4rzln.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <9KhLNobXw-B@khms.westfalen.de> <4198F210.1049@xyzzy.claranet.de> <419CD6A4.6010402@isode.com> <41A5D0CB.3020508@isode.com> Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 11:58:24 GMT Lines: 57 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <41A5D0CB.3020508@isode.com> Alexey Melnikov writes: >Charles Lindsey wrote: >>Alexey has given his preference order as #2, #1, #3, #4. >> >>Does this mean we are all supposed to express out preference order now? If >>so, then my order is #3, #1, (|), #2, #4 >> >> >No, I didn't start a straw poll, but people can express their opinion at >any time (opinion can be sent directly to me, if you prefer). >If we all just happen to magically agree, we can move on to more >interesting topics. Indeed, but there are still several people whose position on some of the options is not clear. I think the 4 options I gave still cover the viable possibilities (though if people want to support Bruce's #5, #6, #7 or #8 then let them speak up). So far, only three people have ranked them in order, and I think it would be helpful if more people did so. Even when we have a front runner, there would still be details to fix up (e.g. the names to be used, what to do about multiple addresses/URLs, etc). >>>I would prefer #2, followed by #1 and #3. >>> >>> >>>As a chair I would note that I see no consensus to use mail-complaint-to >>>over complaints-url. I think the question is whether to provide both of them initially. >> >>Ah! You mean that those who want to give a (non-mailto) URL SHOULD give a >>mail-address as well. Yes, I could live with that. >> >> >Yes. >Note, that this SHOULD belongs to USEAGE. Which is where we disagree. >And I am strictly against it becoming a MUST. Indeed. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 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 iAQHCYVj067122 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 09:12:34 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAQHCYFx067111 for ietf-usefor-skb; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 09:12:34 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp800.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp800.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.142]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id iAQHCXWU066868 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 09:12:33 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-76-118.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.76.118 with poptime) by smtp800.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 26 Nov 2004 17:12:30 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id iAQHCAD15510 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 17:12:10 GMT To: LIST: ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20334 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: msg-id Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <200411232008.PAA17357@ietf.org> <41A57095.5AA4@xyzzy.claranet.de> <200411251402.27855.blilly@erols.com> Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 14:56:20 GMT Lines: 90 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <200411251402.27855.blilly@erols.com> Bruce Lilly writes: >On Thu November 25 2004 00:41, Frank Ellermann wrote: >> > The example given shows the problem. >> > >> > <"abcd"@example.com> >> > <"ab\cd"@example.com> >> > are all the same semantically under RFC 2822 >> >> No chance to treat it literally, three different Message-IDs ? >No. They're not different. And canonicalization and >proper comparison are inexpensive operations. As far as Netnews is concerned, they most certainly are (or would be) different. Canonicalization might be possible at posting or injecting agents (but agents that generate nessage-ids could just as easily generate them in the proper form in the first place). But "proper comparison", as you call it, is most certainly _not_ inexpensive - certainly not on the scale at which it has to be performed within Netnews software, where an agent must be able to determine, in hardly any time at all, whether a given message-id is already present within a history file which will typically have many millions of entries. And make that test with maybe a million new message-ids every day, Yes, it can be (and is) speeded up by various hashing techniques, but it is still the case that one cannot afford anything more than a byte-by-byte test for equality. All the people on this list who actually write news software and who have spoken on this matter are quite adamant about that. >> Not that I like the idea, in fact I'd prefer an id-left without >> no-fold-quote. Who wants NO-WS-CTL in a Message-ID, it's just >> weird, it allows BEL and ESC and NAK and SUB (= DOS EOF), I've >> never seen that somewhere, it crashes any decent system before >> it's injected. >It's legal, has been legal for decades, and does not cause >any crashes in correct implementations. It is legal, maybe, but it is stupid. Ever tried reading a NO-WS-CTL over the telephone? The requirements for a unique message identifier are: 1. That it can safely be regarded as a sequence of bytes which can be compared for simple equality, and with a trivially determined endpoint. >From that POV, there need be no further restrictions on what characters it may contain, so far as the operation of the basic protocol is concerned. 2. It MUST be unique, or with astronomical probabilities against accidental construction of duplicates. 3. It SHOULD be human readable over the telephone. 4. It MAY contain information useful to humans (hence the excellent convention of using a domain name or IP address in the id-right). 5. It SHOULD NOT be cluttered with unnecessary conventions requiring certain characters to be quoted or within quoted-strings. The definition in RFC 2822 fails on almost every one of those tests. So what are the options within Netnews? A. The RFC 2822 convention as it stands is unacceptable. B. We could make the minimum change (restriction) that will ensure that the Netnews protocols work. C. We could also remove some of the worse stupidities, like NO-WS-CTL, no-fold-literals which go further than IPv[46] addresses, or than RFC 2821, and any special meanings for '"' and '\'. The current drafts have always taken approach B. Frank wants to bring in some of C. It would indeed be technically sensible to do so, but it would probably be politically unwise. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 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 iAQHCW2R067024 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 09:12:32 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAQHCWcq067023 for ietf-usefor-skb; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 09:12:32 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp800.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp800.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.142]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id iAQHCVBO066834 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 09:12:31 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-76-118.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.76.118 with poptime) by smtp800.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 26 Nov 2004 17:12:28 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id iAQCCNA13625 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 12:12:23 GMT To: LIST: ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20330 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <417414F5.6020500@isode.com> <87sm7t6n4e.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <41877F8C.7000402@isode.com> <4187E75F.1099@xyzzy.claranet.de> <4188C9F0.6020905@isode.com> <4188CAD0.1080902@isode.com> <41895E2E.5C57@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87sm7qwnse.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <418A41B4.7498@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87u0s5oa3c.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <418B6F21.5A5D@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87oeicrzj4.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87r7n4rzln.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <41A5CCF3.4020601@isode.com> Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 11:28:52 GMT Lines: 35 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <41A5CCF3.4020601@isode.com> Alexey Melnikov writes: >Russ Allbery wrote: >>Charles Lindsey writes: >> >> >>>If we are agreed that it is a Bad Thing for ISPs to be requiring users >>>to use web forms for abuse complaints (and I think we are, and the >>>consensus on the news.net-abuse.* groups supports us), >>> >>> >One can't force the market. People have tried to do that many times, but >I don't remember any successful attempt. Indeed, but if the market is not pressing too hard in the direction you don't want it to go, then it is folly to encourage it in that direction by providing special features for it. That is the beauty of doing it via Injection-Info. You give them mail-copies-to as a parameter. Then, if the market really does want to go the URL way, it will demand another parameter (or start using x-url-complaints regardless). And at that point (if it happens), you add it as an extension. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 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 iAQHCVda066966 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 09:12:31 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAQHCVl8066955 for ietf-usefor-skb; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 09:12:31 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp800.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp800.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.142]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id iAQHCTMU066773 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 09:12:30 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-76-118.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.76.118 with poptime) by smtp800.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 26 Nov 2004 17:12:27 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id iAQCCOi13630 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 12:12:24 GMT To: LIST: ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20331 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <87sm7qwnse.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <200411201119.32742.blilly@erols.com> <41A5CE50.8020307@isode.com> Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 11:45:56 GMT Lines: 28 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <41A5CE50.8020307@isode.com> Alexey Melnikov writes: >Maybe there is a need in "abuse web form considered harmful" document. >But this is generally not an argument against URLs. Our draft has always said that (MUST for injectors, SHOULD for some others) that the mail addresses news@agent and usenet@agent are to be available, in conformity with RFC 2142, plus abuse@agent for an agent offering its services to the general public. That has been a long standing tradition. Complaints-To and the like is really provided only for where the site wants to use something other than 'abuse' (e.g. 'news-abuse' as distinct from 'mail-abuse'), or where the MX record for its centralized abuse department is different from the FQDN it puts in the Path header. Incidentally, one of the advantages of a Complaints-To header over a parameter of Injection-Info is that it would be suitable for use in Emails, if the email community wants to use it. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 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 iAQHCUAC066914 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 09:12:30 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAQHCU8d066913 for ietf-usefor-skb; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 09:12:30 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp800.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp800.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.142]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id iAQHCTEL066746 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 09:12:29 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-76-118.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.76.118 with poptime) by smtp800.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 26 Nov 2004 17:12:26 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id iAQCCPm13634 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 12:12:25 GMT To: LIST: ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20332 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <7468147AEE316B41B3B55152959CE218129253@dul1wnexm05.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <200411201126.22545.blilly@erols.com> <41A5CFD3.2040906@isode.com> Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 11:48:46 GMT Lines: 27 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <41A5CFD3.2040906@isode.com> Alexey Melnikov writes: >>Regarding "straw polls", my remarks about voting still largely apply; >>we need to agree on methods, ensure that *all* points of view are >>represented *fairly*, etc. >> >> >My personal opinion on "straw polls" is that >1). they help to see if people has changed their mind during recent >discussions >2). they are useful to make a decision when there is no strong technical >argument(s) to choose one solution over another. Also when, after a long discussion, it is not clear who is still supporting what, especially if several new options have been introduced along the way. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 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 iAQG6DeW054686 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 08:06:13 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAQG6DF5054600 for ietf-usefor-skb; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 08:06:13 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from ns5.townisp.com (ns5a.townisp.com [216.195.0.140]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAQG6BkI054559 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 08:06:11 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from blilly@erols.com) Received: from mail.blilly.com (dhcp-0-8-a1-c-fa-f7.cpe.townisp.com [216.49.158.220]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ns5.townisp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CDA629911; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 11:06:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.blilly.com with ESMTP id iAQG6Cc4005694(8.12.10/8.12.10/mail.blilly.com sendmail.mc.mail 1.18 2004/05/15 07:23:45) ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 11:06:12 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by marty.blilly.com with ESMTP id iAQG6Bvn005693(8.12.10/8.12.10/blilly.com submit.mc 1.1 2003/08/26 22:21:33) ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 11:06:12 -0500 From: Bruce Lilly Reply-To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Organization: Bruce Lilly To: Alexey Melnikov Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 11:06:09 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 Cc: ietf-usefor@imc.org References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <41A6471E.870@xyzzy.claranet.de> <41A73BB3.7060307@isode.com> In-Reply-To: <41A73BB3.7060307@isode.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200411261106.09430.blilly@erols.com> Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Fri November 26 2004 09:20, Alexey Melnikov wrote: > > Frank Ellermann wrote: > > >Alexey Melnikov wrote: > > > > > >>I just want to note that I would like to be able to have > >>multiple URIs. > >> > >> > > > >If we take the complaint-url= solution, we could simply allow > >zero or more of these constructs in Injection-Info. > > > > > Exactly. If one is going to use MIME-like parameters, that's exactly wrong; one may not have multiple parameters with the same attribute name. Syntax similar to that of a Received field, however, could accommodate multiple instances (as is the case for the Received field "with" component). 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 iAQEKh9o024156 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 06:20:43 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAQEKg26024155 for ietf-usefor-skb; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 06:20:43 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAQEKdnQ024147 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 06:20:40 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from alexey.melnikov-usefor@isode.com) Received: from [172.16.0.116] (shiny.isode.com [62.3.217.250]) by rufus.isode.com via TCP (internal) with ESMTPA; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 14:20:37 +0000 Message-ID: <41A73BB3.7060307@isode.com> Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 14:20:35 +0000 From: Alexey Melnikov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Frank Ellermann CC: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <200411190923.17497.blilly@erols.com> <200411201144.22926.blilly@erols.com> <41A5C24F.3090603@isode.com> <41A6471E.870@xyzzy.claranet.de> In-Reply-To: <41A6471E.870@xyzzy.claranet.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Frank Ellermann wrote: >Alexey Melnikov wrote: > > >>I just want to note that I would like to be able to have >>multiple URIs. >> >> > >If we take the complaint-url= solution, we could simply allow >zero or more of these constructs in Injection-Info. > > Exactly. 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 iAQ2tjPs091278 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 18:55:45 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAQ2tjbn091277 for ietf-usefor-skb; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 18:55:45 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAQ2tidE091235 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 18:55:44 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CXWH0-0004cc-00 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 03:55:50 +0100 Received: from 212.82.251.25 ([212.82.251.25]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 03:55:50 +0100 Received: from nobody by 212.82.251.25 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 03:55:50 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 03:55:00 +0100 Organization: Lines: 23 Message-ID: <41A69B04.5F93@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <200411201119.32742.blilly@erols.com> <200411251318.39303.blilly@erols.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.82.251.25 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Bruce Lilly wrote: > I know of a number of ISPs that block outbound port 25 > (SMTP) connections. Actually a dubious idea, a zombie can still cause harm using all other ports. It's a solution of [censored] organizations like Spamcast not willing to pay a working abuse management. >> whereas lack of access to the web is less uncommon > I know of no ISPs that block outbound connections to port 80 > (HTTP). It's about users reading their news while they are offline. That's no UUCP trick, one user reported that he polls his news during the night, and then reads and answers it on his laptop on the way to resp. from his office (offline, in a train). Of course he could bookmark interesting links, but it's not the same as online. Bye, Frank 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 iAQ2gOdu080062 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 18:42:25 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAQ2gOsG080059 for ietf-usefor-skb; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 18:42:24 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAQ2gL1f079926 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 18:42:22 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CXW43-00042t-00 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 03:42:27 +0100 Received: from 212.82.251.25 ([212.82.251.25]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 03:42:27 +0100 Received: from nobody by 212.82.251.25 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 03:42:27 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: msg-id Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 03:42:00 +0100 Organization: Lines: 11 Message-ID: <41A697F8.49AE@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <41A658DC.4802@xyzzy.claranet.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.82.251.25 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Henry Spencer wrote: > I've just been slow about getting it tidied up for submission. Don't try the XML-ification, that could be a pain. And I'd really like to see it as RfC, at least Bruce then can't tell me that CTL in a Message-ID "worked for decades". ;-) OTOH I couldn't confuse him with my Subject: cmsg anymore, we would all win. Bye, Frank 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 iAQ1h5sc090623 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 17:43:06 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAQ1h5IU090607 for ietf-usefor-skb; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 17:43:05 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from spsystems.net (spsystems.net [216.126.83.115]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAQ1h4pR090217 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 17:43:04 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from henry@spsystems.net) Received: from spsystems.net (henry@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spsystems.net (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id iAQ1gkcC005183; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 20:42:46 -0500 (EST) Received: (from henry@localhost) by spsystems.net (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id iAQ1gk2L005182; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 20:42:46 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 20:42:46 -0500 (EST) From: Henry Spencer To: Usefor Mailing List Subject: Re: msg-id In-Reply-To: <41A658DC.4802@xyzzy.claranet.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Thu, 25 Nov 2004, Frank Ellermann wrote: > What did the RfC-editor say, do we get it as a historic 4036 ? Publication as Historic is possible but extremely unusual; they'd prefer it as Informational, with a preface explaining its history and status. Which is fine by me; I've just been slow about getting it tidied up for submission. Henry Spencer henry@spsystems.net 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 iAPNDI8o011324 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 15:13:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAPNDIeJ011323 for ietf-usefor-skb; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 15:13:18 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAPNDHcP011286 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 15:13:17 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CXSni-0002Q5-00 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 00:13:22 +0100 Received: from 212.82.251.25 ([212.82.251.25]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 00:13:21 +0100 Received: from nobody by 212.82.251.25 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 00:13:21 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: msg-id Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 00:07:13 +0100 Organization: Lines: 56 Message-ID: <41A665A1.C79@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <200411232008.PAA17357@ietf.org> <41A57095.5AA4@xyzzy.claranet.de> <200411251402.27855.blilly@erols.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.82.251.25 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Bruce Lilly wrote: > There is a proposal to do so in RFC 2822's successor. Oops, I didn't know that a 2822bis draft exists, do you have a pointer ? >> E.g. old: unstructured = 1*( [FWS] utext ) [FWS] >> new: unstructured = *WSP utext *( [FWS] utext ) *WSP > No, because that wouldn't permit (legal) > Subject: <- SP here > foo Yes, that was my intention. I wanted it to reflect a 2.2 rule: | The header contents of every header line (including the first | and any that are subsequently folded) MUST contain at least | one non-whitespace character. Your Subject: is invalid, its header content is only a space. If you want to allow this kind of folding - I've no problem with the idea - we have to modify the correspoding MUST. At the moment it's whatever = "header:" SP [FWS] stuff CRLF My fixed version whatever = "header:" SP *WSP stuff CRLF Your idea, maybe whatever = "header:" FWS stuff CRLF If that's really your idea, you have either SP or with an optional CRLF. The real FWS = ([*WSP CRLF] 1*WSP) , not the obs-FWS case in 2822. I'd like it, it's clear and simple. [msg-id with NO-WS-CTL, quote-pairs, and other oddities] > It's legal, has been legal for decades, and does not cause > any crashes in correct implementations. IBTD. At the moment we have something between 1036 and its son in msg-ids, there's no reason to introduce anything more elaborated than IPvX address literals as id-right, and we can copy the syntax from 2821 (not 2822, I really meant 2821 here) > You have complained about BEL; what about NUL (legal under > 822)? NUL is no problem, my MUA simply crashes and I restart it (no joke, fact). RfC 1036 restricted this weirdness at least to: | any string of printing ASCII characters, not including "<" | (left angle bracket), ">" (right angle bracket), or "@" NO-WS-CTL is no printing ASCII character, whatever you do. Bye, Frank 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 iAPMERrn017846 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 14:14:27 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAPMERBE017833 for ietf-usefor-skb; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 14:14:27 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAPMEMfT017655 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 14:14:23 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CXRsg-0007qJ-00 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 23:14:26 +0100 Received: from 212.82.251.25 ([212.82.251.25]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 23:14:26 +0100 Received: from nobody by 212.82.251.25 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 23:14:26 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: msg-id Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 23:12:44 +0100 Organization: Lines: 46 Message-ID: <41A658DC.4802@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <41A57095.5AA4@xyzzy.claranet.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.82.251.25 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Henry Spencer wrote: > If we must be different -- and we really have no choice about > that, given our installed base -- it's better to be > compatible, by restricting news to the subset where the two > behaviors are indistinguishable. I'd really prefer a variant of your s-o-1036 rules: | local-part = unquoted-word *( "." unquoted-word ) | unquoted-word = 1*unquoted-char | unquoted-char = @,;:\".[]> Maybe that's a bit too restrictive, and it won't avoid all "interesting" cases for the news URL, but it's a clean start for id-left in msg-id. Let local parts in mailbox addresses be as weird as they wish, but not in Message-IDs. > tightening the rules to exclude it seems workable. Yes, please. Adding a note that any legal id-left is always a legal local part, but not v.v. >> What do you expect from a poor mail2news gateway, should it >> try to "fix" these weird constructs ? > As with other areas where we are more restrictive, it must > cope somehow: discard, reject and return, or fix up somehow. "Fixing a Message-ID" sounds too much like GiGo for my taste. > Trying to pretend that news software is just as permissive > as mail software simply doesn't work, because it's *not*. It's also a problem for mail software, my ersatz-newsreader is also my MUA, and my scripts working on simple mbox files, I've no idea what they do with a SUB. A raw BEL is probably funny, but ESC and NAK deserve some honorary security considerations. > RFC 1036 unfortunately neglected to outlaw the quoting > characters, an omission that son-of-1036 remedied. What did the RfC-editor say, do we get it as a historic 4036 ? Bye, Frank 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 iAPLXfnj040420 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 13:33:41 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAPLXfBn040418 for ietf-usefor-skb; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 13:33:41 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAPLXeeC040363 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 13:33:40 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CXRFI-0005d6-00 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 22:33:44 +0100 Received: from 212.82.251.25 ([212.82.251.25]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 22:33:44 +0100 Received: from nobody by 212.82.251.25 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 22:33:44 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Archive Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 22:30:41 +0100 Organization: Lines: 31 Message-ID: <41A64F01.378@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <41A3FE89.5C68@xyzzy.claranet.de> <200411240807.14217.blilly@erols.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.82.251.25 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Bruce Lilly wrote: > RFC 2047 (as amended by RFC 2231 and errata) applies only to > human-readable content, viz. unstructured fields, comments, > and RFC [2822] phrases. Yes, I've found it now in RfC 2231. Sneaky, adding the "*" to existing parameters they avoided to define a new MIME version. [Archived-At] > It's not at all clear how that would work on Usenet For something "posted" with Groups.Google it's possible, but it makes more sense for special servers like news.gmane.org (with its own archive) or news.spamcop.net (news2mail gateway with a pipermail archive), i.e. in cases where the Message-ID is not always enough to find old articles. For Usenet it's probably irrelevant, unless users have their own public archive of posted articles. In the case of FAQs it could be as simple as an faqs.org URL or any FAQ homepage. >> It's of no interest for everybody, it's much less relevant >> than any X-Face, and we don't specify a new Face: header. > I tend to agree with Frank here. Fine, that could eliminate filename=, and any 2231 filename*= or folded filename*0= etc. Bye, Frank 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 iAPL9lLU097682 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 13:09:47 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAPL9l3W097676 for ietf-usefor-skb; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 13:09:47 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAPL9iWf097605 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 13:09:45 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CXQs8-0004NN-00 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 22:09:48 +0100 Received: from 212.82.251.25 ([212.82.251.25]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 22:09:48 +0100 Received: from nobody by 212.82.251.25 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 22:09:48 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 21:57:02 +0100 Organization: Lines: 8 Message-ID: <41A6471E.870@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <200411190923.17497.blilly@erols.com> <200411201144.22926.blilly@erols.com> <41A5C24F.3090603@isode.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.82.251.25 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Alexey Melnikov wrote: > I just want to note that I would like to be able to have > multiple URIs. If we take the complaint-url= solution, we could simply allow zero or more of these constructs in Injection-Info. Bye, Frank 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 iAPJ6TKF059309 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 11:06:29 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAPJ6TrT059306 for ietf-usefor-skb; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 11:06:29 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from spsystems.net (spsystems.net [216.126.83.115]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAPJ6Srt058928 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 11:06:28 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from henry@spsystems.net) Received: from spsystems.net (henry@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spsystems.net (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id iAPJ6BcC001982; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 14:06:11 -0500 (EST) Received: (from henry@localhost) by spsystems.net (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id iAPJ6ArY001981; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 14:06:10 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 14:06:10 -0500 (EST) From: Henry Spencer To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: msg-id In-Reply-To: <200411251327.52920.blilly@erols.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Thu, 25 Nov 2004, Bruce Lilly wrote: > > > Even in the form <"\>"@host.UUCP> ? Isn't that just broken ? > > No, it's *different*. And this is an area where news software has always > > been different; ">" has always been completely forbidden within news > > message IDs. RFC 1036 unfortunately neglected to outlaw the quoting > > characters, an omission that son-of-1036 remedied. > > That is about as incorrect as it's possible to get, Henry. Your claim > that there was an omission in RFC 1036 implies that B News 2.11 > would incorrectly handle cases such as the above... Bruce, you're about the only one who believes that B2.11 somehow qualifies as either a reference implementation of RFC 1036 -- a ludicrous claim which is trivial to refute -- or a gold-standard implementation that should be used as a guide for standardization. Note that any implementation which accepts "\>" within a message ID is ipso facto in violation of RFC 1036, which defines a news message ID as: "> If B2.11 accepts "\>", it *is* incorrectly handling this case, since by RFC 1036's definition, that is not legal in a news message ID -- the correct handling is to reject an article bearing such a header. By the way, B2.11 doesn't conform to RFC 822 either, since (if I recall correctly) it considers the whole message ID case-insensitive, which is not what RFC 822 calls for. > ...The case of B News 2.11 also refutes your claim "news > software has always [...] forbidden within news message-IDs". I made no such claim; you've spliced together words from two separate statements to put words in my mouth. Henry Spencer henry@spsystems.net 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 iAPJ2S1e051814 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 11:02:28 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAPJ2Spi051812 for ietf-usefor-skb; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 11:02:28 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from ns3.townisp.com (ns3a.townisp.com [216.195.0.136]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAPJ2RMS051794 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 11:02:28 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from blilly@erols.com) Received: from mail.blilly.com (dhcp-0-8-a1-c-fa-f7.cpe.townisp.com [216.49.158.220]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ns3.townisp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F24B29908; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 14:02:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.blilly.com with ESMTP id iAPJ2Tmo032724(8.12.10/8.12.10/mail.blilly.com sendmail.mc.mail 1.18 2004/05/15 07:23:45) ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 14:02:29 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by marty.blilly.com with ESMTP id iAPJ2SAo032723(8.12.10/8.12.10/blilly.com submit.mc 1.1 2003/08/26 22:21:33) ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 14:02:29 -0500 From: Bruce Lilly Reply-To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Organization: Bruce Lilly To: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: msg-id Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 14:02:27 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 Cc: ietf-usefor@imc.org References: <200411232008.PAA17357@ietf.org> <41A57095.5AA4@xyzzy.claranet.de> In-Reply-To: <41A57095.5AA4@xyzzy.claranet.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200411251402.27855.blilly@erols.com> Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Thu November 25 2004 00:41, Frank Ellermann wrote: > That separate rule is no nonsense, it's a MUST. If you could > express an essential rule in the syntax, why not just do it ? It's possible, but not trivial. There is a proposal to do so in RFC 2822's successor. At one time it was thought that that successor would be RFC 3822, but that obviously didn't happen. It's not clear when the successor will be published. > E.g. old: unstructured = 1*( [FWS] utext ) [FWS] > new: unstructured = *WSP utext *( [FWS] utext ) *WSP No, because that wouldn't permit (legal) Subject: <- SP here foo > > The example given shows the problem. > > > > <"abcd"@example.com> > > <"ab\cd"@example.com> > > are all the same semantically under RFC 2822 > > No chance to treat it literally, three different Message-IDs ? No. They're not different. And canonicalization and proper comparison are inexpensive operations. > Not that I like the idea, in fact I'd prefer an id-left without > no-fold-quote. Who wants NO-WS-CTL in a Message-ID, it's just > weird, it allows BEL and ESC and NAK and SUB (= DOS EOF), I've > never seen that somewhere, it crashes any decent system before > it's injected. It's legal, has been legal for decades, and does not cause any crashes in correct implementations. > I really doubt it, 2822 is way too tolerant, NO-WS-CTL has no > place in a Message-ID, and id-right should be a 2821 "domain" > (i.e. incl. address literals) RFC 2822 id-right does include address literals; the only difference between id-right and domain is that the latter permits CFWS: the msg-id has a similar syntax to angle-addr (identical except that comments and folding white space are not allowed) > It's wrong. The 2822 folks had no idea that Message-IDs are > sacrosanct, our relevant scriptures are STD 11 and RfC 1036: STD 11 = RFC 822. RFC 2822 provides a subset of the RFC 822 syntax for generation and parsing. You have complained about BEL; what about NUL (legal under 822)? 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 iAPIRxZx092155 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 10:27:59 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAPIRxsO092152 for ietf-usefor-skb; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 10:27:59 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from ns3.townisp.com (ns3a.townisp.com [216.195.0.136]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAPIRsNA092007 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 10:27:55 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from blilly@erols.com) Received: from mail.blilly.com (dhcp-0-8-a1-c-fa-f7.cpe.townisp.com [216.49.158.220]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ns3.townisp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA9C229908; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 13:27:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.blilly.com with ESMTP id iAPIRsZn031732(8.12.10/8.12.10/mail.blilly.com sendmail.mc.mail 1.18 2004/05/15 07:23:45) ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 13:27:55 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by marty.blilly.com with ESMTP id iAPIRrFl031731(8.12.10/8.12.10/blilly.com submit.mc 1.1 2003/08/26 22:21:33) ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 13:27:54 -0500 From: Bruce Lilly Reply-To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Organization: Bruce Lilly To: Henry Spencer Subject: Re: msg-id Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 13:27:52 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 Cc: Usefor Mailing List References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200411251327.52920.blilly@erols.com> Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Thu November 25 2004 09:19, Henry Spencer wrote: > > > Some news software uses any '>' as indicating the end of the > > > message-id. > > > > Even in the form <"\>"@host.UUCP> ? Isn't that just broken ? > > No, it's *different*. And this is an area where news software has always > been different; ">" has always been completely forbidden within news > message IDs. RFC 1036 unfortunately neglected to outlaw the quoting > characters, an omission that son-of-1036 remedied. That is about as incorrect as it's possible to get, Henry. Your claim that there was an omission in RFC 1036 implies that B News 2.11 would incorrectly handle cases such as the above, and that is untrue. The case of B News 2.11 also refutes your claim "news software has always [...] forbidden within news message-IDs". Frank is correct; botched parsing of message-ids (taken from RFC 822 by RFC 850, functionally replacing the A news format A line) is simply a broken implementation. 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 iAPIInlQ078764 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 10:18:49 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAPIInOZ078761 for ietf-usefor-skb; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 10:18:49 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from ns1.townisp.com (ns1a.townisp.com [216.195.0.132]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAPIIm9k078534 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 10:18:49 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from blilly@erols.com) Received: from mail.blilly.com (dhcp-0-8-a1-c-fa-f7.cpe.townisp.com [216.49.158.220]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ns1.townisp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EB4F2992B for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 13:18:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.blilly.com with ESMTP id iAPIIhhC031472(8.12.10/8.12.10/mail.blilly.com sendmail.mc.mail 1.18 2004/05/15 07:23:45) ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 13:18:43 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by marty.blilly.com with ESMTP id iAPIIeEV031471(8.12.10/8.12.10/blilly.com submit.mc 1.1 2003/08/26 22:21:33) ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 13:18:42 -0500 From: Bruce Lilly Reply-To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Organization: Bruce Lilly To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <200411201119.32742.blilly@erols.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline X-UID: 147 X-Length: 1736 Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 13:18:38 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200411251318.39303.blilly@erols.com> Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Mon November 22 2004 06:37, Charles Lindsey wrote: > So far as I am aware, it has never been the case > that the IETF expects that all known internet protocols should be presumed > to be available to all internet users, and therefore internet standards do > not normally make such presumptions. Specifying use of a URI does not equate to making any such presumption. > >2. ... -- under some conditions > > a particular group of users might have access to HTTP and NNTP > > (but not SMTP) or to NNTP and SMTP (but not HTTP) or to HTTP > > alone (and it is possible to read and post news via web interfaces). > > Yes, but you know perfectly well that it is unusual for News users not to > have Email capability, Not so; I know of a number of ISPs that block outbound port 25 (SMTP) connections. > whereas lack of access to the web is less uncommon I know of no ISPs that block outbound connections to port 80 (HTTP). 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 iAPEJMe3018889 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 06:19:22 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAPEJM6d018888 for ietf-usefor-skb; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 06:19:22 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from spsystems.net (spsystems.net [216.126.83.115]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAPEJL7M018834 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 06:19:21 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from henry@spsystems.net) Received: from spsystems.net (henry@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spsystems.net (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id iAPEJ3cC027405; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 09:19:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (from henry@localhost) by spsystems.net (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id iAPEJ3Hm027404; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 09:19:03 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 09:19:02 -0500 (EST) From: Henry Spencer To: Usefor Mailing List Subject: Re: msg-id In-Reply-To: <41A57095.5AA4@xyzzy.claranet.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Thu, 25 Nov 2004, Frank Ellermann wrote: > > > > <"abcd"@example.com> > > <"ab\cd"@example.com> > > are all the same semantically under RFC 2822 > > No chance to treat it literally, three different Message-IDs ? That's still different from RFC 2822; moreover, it's incompatible too. (Remember that there is some use of mail tools to manipulate news, so not *everything* will see them as differing.) If we must be different -- and we really have no choice about that, given our installed base -- it's better to be compatible, by restricting news to the subset where the two behaviors are indistinguishable. In principle, this outlaws stuff that news now accepts. In practice, there has never been significant use of such constructs in news message IDs, so tightening the rules to exclude it seems workable. > What do you expect from a poor mail2news gateway, should it > try to "fix" these weird constructs ? As with other areas where we are more restrictive, it must cope somehow: discard, reject and return, or fix up somehow. Trying to pretend that news software is just as permissive as mail software simply doesn't work, because it's *not*. > > Some news software uses any '>' as indicating the end of the > > message-id. > > Even in the form <"\>"@host.UUCP> ? Isn't that just broken ? No, it's *different*. And this is an area where news software has always been different; ">" has always been completely forbidden within news message IDs. RFC 1036 unfortunately neglected to outlaw the quoting characters, an omission that son-of-1036 remedied. Henry Spencer henry@spsystems.net 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 iAPDhhhh001479 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 05:43:43 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAPDhhPu001477 for ietf-usefor-skb; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 05:43:43 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAPDhcio001259 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 05:43:42 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from alexey.melnikov-usefor@isode.com) Received: from [172.16.0.116] (shiny.isode.com [62.3.217.250]) by rufus.isode.com via TCP (internal) with ESMTPA; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 13:43:28 +0000 Message-ID: <41A5D0CB.3020508@isode.com> Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 12:32:11 +0000 From: Alexey Melnikov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Charles Lindsey CC: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Is this a STraw Poll? (was Standardize Complaints-To as deployed) References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <87oeicrzj4.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87r7n4rzln.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <9KhLNobXw-B@khms.westfalen.de> <4198F210.1049@xyzzy.claranet.de> <419CD6A4.6010402@isode.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Charles Lindsey wrote: >In <419CD6A4.6010402@isode.com> Alexey Melnikov writes: > > >>Charles Lindsey wrote: >> >> >>>OK, so I think you are suggesting the following possibilities: >>> >>> > >Alexey has given his preference order as #2, #1, #3, #4. > >Does this mean we are all supposed to express out preference order now? If >so, then my order is #3, #1, (|), #2, #4 > > No, I didn't start a straw poll, but people can express their opinion at any time (opinion can be sent directly to me, if you prefer). If we all just happen to magically agree, we can move on to more interesting topics. >The "(|)" in the middle is my consenus limit (i.e. I could live with >anything to the left of it, but would be most unhappy with anything to the >right). > >[...] > >>I would prefer #2, followed by #1 and #3. >> >> >>As a chair I would note that I see no consensus to use mail-complaint-to >>over complaints-url. >> >> > >Nor does there seem to be any consensus for the opposite. > > Yes, I meant both statements. >>As a WG participant I would be Ok with saying that the >>"mail-complaint-to" SHOULD be present. >> >> > >Ah! You mean that those who want to give a (non-mailto) URL SHOULD give a >mail-address as well. Yes, I could live with that. > > Yes. Note, that this SHOULD belongs to USEAGE. And I am strictly against it becoming a MUST. 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 iAPDhgW0001456 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 05:43:42 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAPDhgMS001455 for ietf-usefor-skb; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 05:43:42 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAPDhcin001259 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 05:43:41 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from alexey.melnikov-usefor@isode.com) Received: from [172.16.0.116] (shiny.isode.com [62.3.217.250]) by rufus.isode.com via TCP (internal) with ESMTPA; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 13:43:27 +0000 Message-ID: <41A5CFD3.2040906@isode.com> Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 12:28:03 +0000 From: Alexey Melnikov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? References: <7468147AEE316B41B3B55152959CE218129253@dul1wnexm05.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <200411201126.22545.blilly@erols.com> In-Reply-To: <200411201126.22545.blilly@erols.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Bruce Lilly wrote: >On Fri November 19 2004 11:11, Scott Hollenbeck wrote: > > >>Confirming the last sentence: the IETF does not use voting to determine >>consensus. >> >>OK, OK, I know that we *do* use hums and straw polls, which may be >>considered a form of voting, to help determine consensus. See section 3.3 >>of RFC 2418 for guidelines describing what should be done to determine >>consensus. RFC 3929 may also be helpful for issues that are particularly >>contentious. >> >>-Scott- >>(speaking as area advisor) >> >> > >Just to avoid misinterpretation of my remarks as criticism of the Chair, >I'd like to clarify two points: >1. Although there was some concern about an early "60%" criterion, > the Chair has since affirmed that voting is not intended to be used > to determine consensus > > That is correct. A good technical argument always wins. >2. The Chair did not initiate discussion of a "vote" or a euphemism > for a vote (e.g. "count heads") in this matter. > > No, I didn't initiate voting. >Regarding "straw polls", my remarks about voting still largely apply; >we need to agree on methods, ensure that *all* points of view are >represented *fairly*, etc. > > My personal opinion on "straw polls" is that 1). they help to see if people has changed their mind during recent discussions 2). they are useful to make a decision when there is no strong technical argument(s) to choose one solution over another. Alexey 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 iAPDhflj001439 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 05:43:41 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAPDhff7001438 for ietf-usefor-skb; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 05:43:41 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAPDhcim001259 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 05:43:41 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from alexey.melnikov-usefor@isode.com) Received: from [172.16.0.116] (shiny.isode.com [62.3.217.250]) by rufus.isode.com via TCP (internal) with ESMTPA; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 13:43:27 +0000 Message-ID: <41A5CE50.8020307@isode.com> Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 12:21:36 +0000 From: Alexey Melnikov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Charles Lindsey CC: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <87sm7qwnse.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <200411201119.32742.blilly@erols.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Charles Lindsey wrote: >In <200411201119.32742.blilly@erols.com> Bruce Lilly writes: > > >>On Thu November 4 2004 11:20, Charles Lindsey wrote: >> >> >>>and things >>>must be so that a user who has News access but no Web access is not >>>disadvantaged. >>> >>> >>That is specious for two reasons: >>1. we are discussing an Internet Standards Track RFC, which >> is applicable for the Internet and does not impose any >> requirements on non-Internet use of news. >> >> > >Usenet is not a part of the internet, but 99% of Usenet traffic is in fact >carried on the internet, so it makes good sense to standardize it under >the auspices of the IETF. So far as I am aware, it has never been the case >that the IETF expects that all known internet protocols should be presumed >to be available to all internet users, and therefore internet standards do >not normally make such presumptions. > > I've participated in an IAB Workshop on Messaging recently and several participants have expressed wish to be able to tie different protocols together: access resources of one in another, etc. This suggest strong user's desire for protocol convergence. I think new standards should not make such convergence more difficult. >>2. ... -- under some conditions >> a particular group of users might have access to HTTP and NNTP >> (but not SMTP) or to NNTP and SMTP (but not HTTP) or to HTTP >> alone (and it is possible to read and post news via web interfaces). >> >> > >Yes, but you know perfectly well that it is unusual for News users not to >have Email capability, whereas lack of access to the web is less uncommon >(for example to people using simple terminals or terminal emulators - I >have not tried filling in an abuse web form using Linx, but I doubt it >would be an easy task). > > Maybe there is a need in "abuse web form considered harmful" document. But this is generally not an argument against URLs. 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 iAPDhfCj001414 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 05:43:41 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAPDhfUH001413 for ietf-usefor-skb; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 05:43:41 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAPDhcil001259 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 05:43:40 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from alexey.melnikov-usefor@isode.com) Received: from [172.16.0.116] (shiny.isode.com [62.3.217.250]) by rufus.isode.com via TCP (internal) with ESMTPA; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 13:43:25 +0000 Message-ID: <41A5CCF3.4020601@isode.com> Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 12:15:47 +0000 From: Alexey Melnikov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Russ Allbery CC: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <417414F5.6020500@isode.com> <87sm7t6n4e.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <41877F8C.7000402@isode.com> <4187E75F.1099@xyzzy.claranet.de> <4188C9F0.6020905@isode.com> <4188CAD0.1080902@isode.com> <41895E2E.5C57@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87sm7qwnse.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <418A41B4.7498@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87u0s5oa3c.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <418B6F21.5A5D@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87oeicrzj4.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87r7n4rzln.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> In-Reply-To: <87r7n4rzln.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Russ Allbery wrote: >Charles Lindsey writes: > > >>If we are agreed that it is a Bad Thing for ISPs to be requiring users >>to use web forms for abuse complaints (and I think we are, and the >>consensus on the news.net-abuse.* groups supports us), >> >> One can't force the market. People have tried to do that many times, but I don't remember any successful attempt. >I don't actually agree with this. I just think it's pointless to try to >argue it with the people here. > > >>then the first thing you do is to ensure that the syntax provided in >>your complaints-header does not afford them that opportunity. >> >> > >This is putting policy that might change into the standard. I think this >is a hideously bad idea for all of the reasons that I've previously stated >and that have been discussed on the mailing list for the last three or >four years, the same reasons that have resulted in splitting the policy >document off to USEAGE. > > I agree. We should keep policy separate, or we might regret our policy choices made-into-standard down the road. Alexey 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 iAPDhdGW001391 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 05:43:39 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAPDhdaS001390 for ietf-usefor-skb; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 05:43:39 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAPDhcij001259 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 05:43:38 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from alexey.melnikov-usefor@isode.com) Received: from [172.16.0.116] (shiny.isode.com [62.3.217.250]) by rufus.isode.com via TCP (internal) with ESMTPA; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 13:43:18 +0000 Message-ID: <41A5BF70.4010008@isode.com> Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 11:18:08 +0000 From: Alexey Melnikov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Thorfinn CC: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? References: <4188CAD0.1080902@isode.com> <41895E2E.5C57@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87sm7qwnse.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <418A41B4.7498@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87u0s5oa3c.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <418B6F21.5A5D@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87oeicrzj4.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87r7n4rzln.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <20041110000028.GA25763@dora.tertius.net.au> In-Reply-To: <20041110000028.GA25763@dora.tertius.net.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Thorfinn wrote: >>>I don't actually agree with this. I just think it's pointless to try to >>>argue it with the people here. >>> >>> >>With a mail abuse address, you can to a large extent automate the process >>of sending a LART (e.g. by generating a mail message with the right To: >>address and with the full headers already pasted into it; so you just have >>to add some text explaining that this is a spam, or whatever). >>But every web site interface is different. Each LART has to be constructed >>by hand by a human, including cutting and pasting a set of full headers >>into whatever box (usually too small) the web site deigns to provide. >> >> > >Huh? If it's a URL, you (the ISP) just embed a message identifier of >some kind into the URL. Complaining about it is as simple as clicking >on the URL, and voila, done, complaint registered, no user interaction >required. > > And there are many RPC proposals that run over HTTP transport (not that I am advocating their usage). So the argument that this is difficult to automate doesn't seem convincing. > [...] >And reader agents are free to just ignore anything that isn't a mailto:... >I don't think we're putting any requirement on them to necessarily do >anything *with* a Complaints-To: header, are we? > > Correct. 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 iAPDheE4001403 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 05:43:40 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAPDheK2001402 for ietf-usefor-skb; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 05:43:40 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAPDhcik001259 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 05:43:39 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from alexey.melnikov-usefor@isode.com) Received: from [172.16.0.116] (shiny.isode.com [62.3.217.250]) by rufus.isode.com via TCP (internal) with ESMTPA; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 13:43:23 +0000 Message-ID: <41A5C24F.3090603@isode.com> Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 11:30:23 +0000 From: Alexey Melnikov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: ***SPAM-3*** Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <200411190923.17497.blilly@erols.com> <200411201144.22926.blilly@erols.com> In-Reply-To: <200411201144.22926.blilly@erols.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Bruce Lilly wrote: >On Fri November 19 2004 09:23, Bruce Lilly wrote: > > >>On Tue November 16 2004 06:34, Charles Lindsey wrote: >> >> >>>Any other options anyone wants? >>> >>> > >8. A separate field whose field body specifies a list of URIs (so > that multiple supported alternative methods of reporting abuse > can be specified), perhaps something like the (incompletely- > specified) List- fields of RFC 2369. > > I just want to note that I would like to be able to have multiple URIs. Whether they are in a separate header or part of the Injection-Info header - this is secondary to me. 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 iAP60ibM038192 for ; Wed, 24 Nov 2004 22:00:44 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAP60ibK038187 for ietf-usefor-skb; Wed, 24 Nov 2004 22:00:44 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAP60gPO037971 for ; Wed, 24 Nov 2004 22:00:43 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CXCgN-0002MR-00 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 07:00:43 +0100 Received: from 212.82.251.115 ([212.82.251.115]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 07:00:42 +0100 Received: from nobody by 212.82.251.115 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 07:00:42 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: msg-id Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 06:41:41 +0100 Organization: Lines: 138 Message-ID: <41A57095.5AA4@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <200411232008.PAA17357@ietf.org> <41A3E953.3856@xyzzy.claranet.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.82.251.115 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Charles Lindsey wrote: > We have agreed that there will be no comments in Message-ID > headers, hence the change from CFWS to FWS at that point. Yes, that's clear, but *WSP instead of [FWS] would avoid the illegal folding. Actually both [FWS], the right [FWS] has the same problem as the left [FWS]. You could replace quite a lot of {FWS] by *WSP, not only in this header. > But folding is, in principle, allowed. Actually, as it turns > out, you can't now have folding there, but that is only > because of the separate rule that says that the content of a > header line cannot be just whitespace. That separate rule is no nonsense, it's a MUST. If you could express an essential rule in the syntax, why not just do it ? > I would prefer not to make the syntax any more different from > RFC 2822 than it needs to be. Okay, doing it _only_ for msg-id is bad, but generally I'd like it. You have it in unstructured, msg-id, newsgroup-list, path-list, control, and dist-list. Always a similar pattern: whatever = "header:" SP stuff CRLF stuff = *( [FWS] item ) [FWS] That's IMHO wrong, you want at least one non-empty item. You could fix it with something like: stuff = *WSP item *( [FWS] item ) *WSP E.g. old: unstructured = 1*( [FWS] utext ) [FWS] new: unstructured = *WSP utext *( [FWS] utext ) *WSP If that's most definitely not what you want you're forced to replace "MUST contain at least one non-whitespace character" by an equivalent SHOULD. "MAY accept headers which do not contain the required space" is also dubious, because there are actually two possibilities: No SP, just header:stuff, or header:stuff. My "popstop" script had to be fixed, because it didn't expect the in a MIME header. Maybe it's better to add "or use instead of the required space" to this "MAY". Where the syntax later reflects "MUST generate headers so that at least one space" etc. That's "MUST generate header fields" etc. for some of us. [normalized msg-id-core] > The example given shows the problem. > > <"abcd"@example.com> > <"ab\cd"@example.com> > are all the same semantically under RFC 2822 No chance to treat it literally, three different Message-IDs ? It's the problem of the UA or server generating this crap, if it breaks they own the pieces. What do you expect from a poor mail2news gateway, should it try to "fix" these weird constructs ? > the syntax now given is exactly what has been in our drafts > for a long time now. Yes, I never saw that it's so different from 2822, but the new "mqtext" somehow attracted my attention. And the 2822 solution is not better, apparently they tried to get away with as less restrictions as possible. But if you want another better syntax, then you could IMHO use something known like the "domain" in 2821 (maybe minus the "1" for at least one dot, let host "TV" have its own Message-IDs :) > I tried to ensure that the new News URL draft would follow > the same rule. That's good, but the "\" in a quoted pair should be no problem, if it's reserved %5C works. For the news URL it would be more interesting to get rid of %d37 "%" in mqtext and mdtext somehow, You've already eliminated %d62 ">" resp. the quoted-pair "\>". > Some news software uses any '>' as indicating the end of the > message-id. Even in the form <"\>"@host.UUCP> ? Isn't that just broken ? Not that I like the idea, in fact I'd prefer an id-left without no-fold-quote. Who wants NO-WS-CTL in a Message-ID, it's just weird, it allows BEL and ESC and NAK and SUB (= DOS EOF), I've never seen that somewhere, it crashes any decent system before it's injected. > It is ugly, but it works. I really doubt it, 2822 is way too tolerant, NO-WS-CTL has no place in a Message-ID, and id-right should be a 2821 "domain" (i.e. incl. address literals) > I don't know why, but that is the way it is It's wrong. The 2822 folks had no idea that Message-IDs are sacrosanct, our relevant scriptures are STD 11 and RfC 1036: | In order to conform to RFC-822, the Message-ID must have the | format: | | | where full_domain_name is the full name of the host at which | the message entered the network, including a domain that host | is in, and unique is any string of printing ASCII characters, | not including "<" (left angle bracket), ">" (right angle | bracket), or "@" (at sign). _That_ is a Message-ID. Anything else is rubbish. My private bible even explains the details: | NOTE: News message IDs are a restricted subset of | MAIL message IDs. In particular, no existing news | software copes properly with MAIL quoting conven- | tions within the local part, so they are forbid- | den. This is unfortunate, particularly for X.400 | gateways that often wish to include characters | which are not legal in unquoted message IDs, but | it is impossible to fix net-wide. Ten years later, almost all X.400 gateways are now in a museum, it's not more "unfortunate" and still "forbidden". We're not obliged to copy the bugs of 2822, we need something that works. In other words, as soon as it's clear that you MUST derive from 2822, then you're IMO automatically free to do "the right thing". Bye, Frank 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 iAP3Ci3j073692 for ; Wed, 24 Nov 2004 19:12:44 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAP3CiVZ073691 for ietf-usefor-skb; Wed, 24 Nov 2004 19:12:44 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp814.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp814.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.204]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id iAP3ChDO073293 for ; Wed, 24 Nov 2004 19:12:43 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-68-235.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.68.235 with poptime) by smtp814.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 25 Nov 2004 03:12:22 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id iAP3CBn29678 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 03:12:11 GMT To: LIST: ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20310 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: msg-id Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <200411232008.PAA17357@ietf.org> <41A3E953.3856@xyzzy.claranet.de> Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 22:58:19 GMT Lines: 80 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <41A3E953.3856@xyzzy.claranet.de> Frank Ellermann writes: >Hi, just seen in the new draft-ietf-usefor-02.txt : >| message-id = "Message-ID:" SP msg-id CRLF >| msg-id = [FWS] msg-id-core [FWS] >| msg-id-core = "<" id-left "@" id-right ">" >What's the idea here ? The left [FWS] should be [*WSP], we >don't want a CRLF at this place. For lists of msg-ids (as in >"References:") the right FWS allows to fold between msg-ids. We have agreed that there will be no comments in Message-ID headers, hence the change from CFWS to FWS at that point. But folding is, in principle, allowed. Actually, as it turns out, you can't now have folding there, but that is only because of the separate rule that says that the content of a header line cannot be just whitespace. Indeed, that could be pointed out, but I would prefer not to make the syntax any more different from RFC 2822 than it needs to be. >| no-fold-quote = DQUOTE >| *( mqtext / "\\" / "\" DQUOTE ) >| mqspecial >| *( mqtext / "\\" / "\" DQUOTE ) >| DQUOTE >Why is this so different from RfC 2822 ? Apparently you want >at least one "mqspecial" here: >\" ( ) , . : ; < @ [ \\ ] i.e. 34 40 41 44 46 58..60 64 91..93 Indeed so. The example given shows the problem. <"abcd"@example.com> <"ab\cd"@example.com> are all the same semantically under RFC 2822, but they would certainly not be treated the same by any news software currently deployed, and the performance hit of so requiring would be intolerable. Note that the syntax now given is exactly what has been in our drafts for a long time now. >And you allow only two quoted-pairs \\ and \". That's related >to the discussion about a news URL, isn't it ? Yes, I tried to ensure that the new News URL draft would follow the same rule. >You allow NO-WS-CTL, but not with a backslash. And you don't >allow >, not even \>. That's very confusing. No. Some news software uses any '>' as indicating the end of the message-id. > I've a vague >idea what you want, some kind of "normalized msg-id", that's >good, but I'm not yet convinced that the result is ok. Yes, and that is exactly what the given syntax enforces. It is ugly, but it works. >Why not simply copy address-literal from 2821 for id-right ? >All these weird cases like \[ \] etc. are then illegal. We >probably also find something better for id-left. Bye, Frank Because RFC2822 allows an id-right to be much more than an address-literal from RFC 2821. I don't know why, but that is the way it is, and we are supposed to be making the minimum necessary change from RFC 2822. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 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 iAOD7I6T074844 for ; Wed, 24 Nov 2004 05:07:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAOD7IPw074842 for ietf-usefor-skb; Wed, 24 Nov 2004 05:07:18 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.61]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAOD7Hkb074797 for ; Wed, 24 Nov 2004 05:07:17 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from blilly@erols.com) X-Info: This message was accepted for relay by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net as the sender used SMTP authentication X-Trace: uR+4butJbfRV+a/AmqXz1LC3/d9x90PVraQAuQUpFCw= Received: from wireless-12-40-110-56.bryantpark.org ([12.40.110.56] helo=mail.blilly.com) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #7) id 1CWwrd-0000Mp-00; Wed, 24 Nov 2004 08:07:17 -0500 Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.blilly.com with ESMTP id iAOD7FCr012553(8.12.10/8.12.10/mail.blilly.com sendmail.mc.mail 1.18 2004/05/15 07:23:45) ; Wed, 24 Nov 2004 08:07:16 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by marty.blilly.com with ESMTP id iAOD7Fw9012552(8.12.10/8.12.10/blilly.com submit.mc 1.1 2003/08/26 22:21:33) ; Wed, 24 Nov 2004 08:07:15 -0500 From: Bruce Lilly Reply-To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Organization: Bruce Lilly To: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Archive Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 08:07:13 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 Cc: ietf-usefor@imc.org References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <41A3FE89.5C68@xyzzy.claranet.de> In-Reply-To: <41A3FE89.5C68@xyzzy.claranet.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200411240807.14217.blilly@erols.com> Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Tue November 23 2004 22:22, Frank Ellermann wrote: > > Charles Lindsey wrote: > > > we might get files names or Injection-info parameters in > > non-ASCII charsets, and these also rely on RFC 2231. > > Not really, you could say 2047 where you said 2045 + 2231, > 2231 has nothing to do with character sets. No, RFC 2047 (as amended by RFC 2231 and errata) applies only to human-readable content, viz. unstructured fields, comments, and RFC [2822] phrases. > > Martin's "Archived-At" doesn't do quite the same thing. > > It does something useful, it establishes a "Permalink" > (that's hacker slang for a URL meant to stay some time) It's not at all clear how that would work on Usenet; it's defined in terms of a mailing list, where a single host (the list expander) makes an archive copy, then redistributes the message. Usenet messages are archived all over the place, by multiple sites at various points during propagation. If an Archived-At field could be added at any time, there will be multiple copies of what is ostensibly the "same" message, with different sets of fields pointing to different places. > > the filename parameter of our Archive header is of no > > interest to Google. > > It's of no interest for everybody, it's much less relevant > than any X-Face, and we don't specify a new Face: header. I tend to agree with Frank here. > Back to the 3rd millenium, the WWW exists, Martin's idea > is good, and a standard way to propose filenames for FAQ > collectors comes at least 10 years too late for everybody. It's not about file names per se, but about URIs for accessing messages. 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 iAO3PD5R043034 for ; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 19:25:13 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAO3PDPf043033 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 19:25:13 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAO3PBMQ043014 for ; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 19:25:12 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CWnmP-0005k0-00 for ; Wed, 24 Nov 2004 04:25:17 +0100 Received: from du-001-010.access.de.clara.net ([212.82.227.10]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 24 Nov 2004 04:25:17 +0100 Received: from nobody by du-001-010.access.de.clara.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 24 Nov 2004 04:25:17 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Archive Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 04:22:49 +0100 Organization: Lines: 78 Message-ID: <41A3FE89.5C68@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <87u0s5oa3c.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <200411190857.50669.blilly@erols.com> <41A20316.1EFE@hamburg.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: du-001-010.access.de.clara.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Charles Lindsey wrote: > we might get files names or Injection-info parameters in > non-ASCII charsets, and these also rely on RFC 2231. Not really, you could say 2047 where you said 2045 + 2231, 2231 has nothing to do with character sets. > Bruce Lilly will be screaming blue murder if we don't > mention it (and for once I might agree with him :-( ). Unfortunately I forgot the second part of 2231 with the language tags for 2047, and that part is okay, in fact I like it. But the first part is a PITA. > I agree that there should never be a need to use the > extended line feature in News Then let's get rid of the filename parameter in Archive, otherwise it is necesseary. > the strange things introduced by RFC 2231 were already > legal under RFC 2045. I've never seen a boundary*0=something in the wild, and it would break "some" user agents and spam filters. What a wonderful toy for spammers and worm authors, :-( > Martin's "Archived-At" doesn't do quite the same thing. It does something useful, it establishes a "Permalink" (that's hacker slang for a URL meant to stay some time) > the filename parameter of our Archive header is of no > interest to Google. It's of no interest for everybody, it's much less relevant than any X-Face, and we don't specify a new Face: header. > I have particularly in mind is the Archive pseudo header > currently used by the news.answers moderators Okay, let's assume that the WWW does not exist, and that you are a collector of FAQs posted in news.answers: They have already a working solution for their problem, if it ain't broken don't fix it. Back to the 3rd millenium, the WWW exists, Martin's idea is good, and a standard way to propose filenames for FAQ collectors comes at least 10 years too late for everybody. > the news.answers people are going to have to move to > something different sooner or later anyway. They run on auto-pilot, they are no people, they are bots. I tried to reach a human being at faqs.org, because links to the plain text RfC versions don't work => forget it. > it is unlikely that a filename parameter will ever be so > long as to need RFC 2231 splitting Maybe it wants a RfC 2231 language, that's not much better. The concept of proposing a filename for a posted file is dubious, the I-D list and the RfC-editor list work without posting files. Newsgroups with binaries apparently also work without this "feature" (but don't ask me how). > I would still prefer it to extend beyond 79 characters > (whatever) than to split it There, it doesn't work on my FAT partitions, but it needs its own section in the security considerations. Please let's get rid of it, there's a limit for pretending that the WWW doesn't exist, proposed filenames are beyond it. Bye, Frank 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 iAO2Yn2G024478 for ; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 18:34:49 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAO2Yn2r024477 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 18:34:49 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAO2Yjmw024456 for ; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 18:34:46 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CWmzY-0003bt-00 for ; Wed, 24 Nov 2004 03:34:48 +0100 Received: from du-001-010.access.de.clara.net ([212.82.227.10]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 24 Nov 2004 03:34:48 +0100 Received: from nobody by du-001-010.access.de.clara.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 24 Nov 2004 03:34:48 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: msg-id Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 02:52:19 +0100 Organization: Lines: 32 Message-ID: <41A3E953.3856@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <200411232008.PAA17357@ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: du-001-010.access.de.clara.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Hi, just seen in the new draft-ietf-usefor-02.txt : | message-id = "Message-ID:" SP msg-id CRLF | msg-id = [FWS] msg-id-core [FWS] | msg-id-core = "<" id-left "@" id-right ">" What's the idea here ? The left [FWS] should be [*WSP], we don't want a CRLF at this place. For lists of msg-ids (as in "References:") the right FWS allows to fold between msg-ids. | no-fold-quote = DQUOTE | *( mqtext / "\\" / "\" DQUOTE ) | mqspecial | *( mqtext / "\\" / "\" DQUOTE ) | DQUOTE Why is this so different from RfC 2822 ? Apparently you want at least one "mqspecial" here: \" ( ) , . : ; < @ [ \\ ] i.e. 34 40 41 44 46 58..60 64 91..93 And you allow only two quoted-pairs \\ and \". That's related to the discussion about a news URL, isn't it ? You allow NO-WS-CTL, but not with a backslash. And you don't allow >, not even \>. That's very confusing. I've a vague idea what you want, some kind of "normalized msg-id", that's good, but I'm not yet convinced that the result is ok. Why not simply copy address-literal from 2821 for id-right ? All these weird cases like \[ \] etc. are then illegal. We probably also find something better for id-left. Bye, Frank 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 iANKhlgt017616 for ; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 12:43:47 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iANKhlsV017615 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 12:43:47 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from spsystems.net (spsystems.net [216.126.83.115]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iANKhklv017526 for ; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 12:43:46 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from henry@spsystems.net) Received: from spsystems.net (henry@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spsystems.net (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id iANKhScC026598; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 15:43:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from henry@localhost) by spsystems.net (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id iANKhRWx026597; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 15:43:27 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 15:43:27 -0500 (EST) From: Henry Spencer To: Usefor Mailing List Subject: Re: poll methodology (was Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Charles Lindsey wrote: > >...interpretation of the results is non-trivial and is prone to > >misunderstandings by those unfamiliar with the method. On the whole, I > >fear that a simpler method (e.g. approval voting: mark X on every option > >you can live with) is preferable. > > If you include, in your list of preferences, the point at which "I could > live with the ones above this, but not those below", then you have enough > information to analyze the results either way... If you analyze *both* ways, that makes the results *still more* complex, and still more prone to misinterpretation by people unfamiliar with non-traditional voting schemes. My point is that we need something which yields *simpler* results. Yes, Condorcet's scheme has advantages. But its complexity also incurs serious practical disadvantages in this context, and it seems to me that a simpler scheme is preferable despite being theoretically inferior. Classical vote-for-only-one definitely is *too* simple for a multi-way choice. But remember that what we are after, as an IETF WG, is not necessarily the best solution, but a workable one that most people can live with. So indicating which choices you can live with is the important part in a consensus-assessing poll. Only if there are multiple choices which are about equally acceptable do we have any need to consider whether there's a consensus preferring one or the other. To my mind, it seems preferable to handle such a case -- should it arise -- by just conducting a second tie-breaker poll. Henry Spencer henry@spsystems.net 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 iANK8Qae007495 for ; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 12:08:26 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iANK8QRL007494 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 12:08:26 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iANK8PBQ007487 for ; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 12:08:26 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rbunch@cnri.reston.va.us) Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA17357; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 15:08:27 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200411232008.PAA17357@ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Cc: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-usefor-usefor-02.txt Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 15:08:27 -0500 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Usenet Article Standard Update Working Group of the IETF. Title : News Article Format Author(s) : C. Lindsey, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-usefor-usefor-02.txt Pages : 29 Date : 2004-11-23 This document specifies the syntax of network news (Netnews) articles in the context of the 'Internet Message Format' (RFC 2822) and 'Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME)' (RFC 2045). This document supersedes RFC 1036, updating it to reflect current practice and incorporating incremental changes specified in other documents. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-usefor-usefor-02.txt To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce to change your subscription settings. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-usefor-usefor-02.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-usefor-usefor-02.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2004-11-23142304.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-usefor-usefor-02.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-usefor-usefor-02.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2004-11-23142304.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- 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 iANCCr2r038185 for ; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 04:12:53 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iANCCrvi038184 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 04:12:53 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp811.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp811.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.201]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id iANCCkG7038017 for ; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 04:12:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-76-169.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.76.169 with poptime) by smtp811.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 23 Nov 2004 12:12:26 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id iANCCDB12788 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 12:12:13 GMT To: LIST: ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20306 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: poll methodology (was Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed?) Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 11:03:09 GMT Lines: 35 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In Henry Spencer writes: >On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, Charles Lindsey wrote: >> It is ultimately up to our Chair how he uses straw votes to decide which >> option has the best consensus. But if we give our preferences as an >> ordered list of options, then the method devised by the Marquis de >> Condorcet has much to commend it (we used that method once before when we >> had a straw poll here... >Yes, and unfortunately, that one use also showed a big disadvantage of >this method: interpretation of the results is non-trivial and is prone to >misunderstandings by those unfamiliar with the method. On the whole, I >fear that a simpler method (e.g. approval voting: mark X on every option >you can live with) is preferable. If you include, in your list of preferences, the point at which "I could live with the ones above this, but not those below", then you have enough information to analyze the results either way (and that is more or less how it was done on the last occasion). One of the nicest features of Condorcet's scheme is that there is nothing you can do by way of sneaky "tactical voting" that will bring you any advantage over what you get by giving your honest opinion of which order your preferences lie in. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 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 iANCCYkT037954 for ; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 04:12:34 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iANCCY6f037953 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 04:12:34 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp811.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp811.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.201]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id iANCCW1I037851 for ; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 04:12:33 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-76-169.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.76.169 with poptime) by smtp811.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 23 Nov 2004 12:12:27 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id iANCCEG12798 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 12:12:14 GMT To: LIST: ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20307 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: Archive (was: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed?) Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <87u0s5oa3c.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <200411190857.50669.blilly@erols.com> <41A20316.1EFE@hamburg.de> Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 11:40:07 GMT Lines: 74 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <41A20316.1EFE@hamburg.de> Frank Ellermann writes: >Charles Lindsey wrote: >> the USEFOR draft needs to make it clear that these parameters >> in the Archive and Injection-Info headers are indeed subject >> to the usual rules regarding MIME parameters >That's documented elsewhere, don't mention it. No, it isn't documented elsewhere. It is documented as regards the Content-Type header in RFC 2045 (+2231) and as regards the Content-Disposition header in RFC 2183 (+2231). But nowhere does it say it applies to the Archive header and the Injection-Info header. So it needs a few words in USEFOR to make it clear. >> including RFC 2231. >Never ever mention it, arguably it allows weird stuff like >boundary*0=next; boundary*1=" "; boundary*2=part I think it has to be mentioned, because such constructs are going to turn up from mail (certainly in Content-Type and Content-Disposition). Moreover we might get files names or Injection-info parameters in non-ASCII charsets, and these also rely on RFC 2231. And Bruce Lilly will be screaming blue murder if we don't mention it (and for once I might agree with him :-( ). But I agree that there should never be a need to use the extended line feature in News, and I would have no problem if USEFOR were to point this out. >Somewhere it says "MUST NOT change the syntax", and the next >thing it does is to change the syntax. I really don't like it. No, the strange things introduced by RFC 2231 were already legal under RFC 2045. It's just that some strange parameters that noone was ever likely to write in Real Life suddenly acquired a new semantics. The same is true of RFC 2047. >Can we get rid of the new "filename" parameter of "Archive" ? >Common practice is X-NoArchive: yes, and that's of course >weird, but the only relevant case. Almost nobody (*) uses >"Summary" or "Keywords", and another irrelevant "filename" in >a new "Archive" won't fly. Martin's new "Archived-At" is a >good idea, and Usenet will inherit it. No, Martin's "Archived-At" doesn't do quite the same thing. Agreed the filename parameter of our Archive header is of no interest to Google. But one can foresee other applications for this header (and one I have particularly in mind is the Archive pseudo header currently used by the news.answers moderators, which is actually a part of the body and comes unstuck if ever you want to write a FAQ as a multipart (e.g. as a miltipart/digest); so I think the news.answers people are going to have to move to something different sooner or later anyway. And, in any case, it is unlikely that a filename parameter will ever be so long as to need RFC 2231 splitting, and I would still prefer it to extend beyond 79 characters (whatever) than to split it. And that too could be pointed out in USEFOR. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 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 iAMFgTss093047 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 2004 07:42:29 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAMFgTYL093046 for ietf-usefor-skb; Mon, 22 Nov 2004 07:42:29 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from spsystems.net (spsystems.net [216.126.83.115]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAMFgQ6R092951 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 2004 07:42:28 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from henry@spsystems.net) Received: from spsystems.net (henry@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spsystems.net (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id iAMFgFcC004002; Mon, 22 Nov 2004 10:42:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from henry@localhost) by spsystems.net (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id iAMFgEKU004001; Mon, 22 Nov 2004 10:42:14 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 10:42:14 -0500 (EST) From: Henry Spencer To: Usefor Mailing List Subject: poll methodology (was Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, Charles Lindsey wrote: > It is ultimately up to our Chair how he uses straw votes to decide which > option has the best consensus. But if we give our preferences as an > ordered list of options, then the method devised by the Marquis de > Condorcet has much to commend it (we used that method once before when we > had a straw poll here... Yes, and unfortunately, that one use also showed a big disadvantage of this method: interpretation of the results is non-trivial and is prone to misunderstandings by those unfamiliar with the method. On the whole, I fear that a simpler method (e.g. approval voting: mark X on every option you can live with) is preferable. Henry Spencer henry@spsystems.net 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 iAMFK3Px080010 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 2004 07:20:03 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAMFK3DU080009 for ietf-usefor-skb; Mon, 22 Nov 2004 07:20:03 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAMFJw41079964 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 2004 07:19:59 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CWFyy-0004Yo-00 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 2004 16:20:00 +0100 Received: from c-134-88-251.hh.dial.de.ignite.net ([62.134.88.251]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 2004 16:20:00 +0100 Received: from nobody by c-134-88-251.hh.dial.de.ignite.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 2004 16:20:00 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Archive (was: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed?) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 16:17:42 +0100 Organization: Lines: 41 Message-ID: <41A20316.1EFE@hamburg.de> References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <87u0s5oa3c.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <200411190857.50669.blilly@erols.com> Reply-To: nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: c-134-88-251.hh.dial.de.ignite.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Charles Lindsey wrote: > the USEFOR draft needs to make it clear that these parameters > in the Archive and Injection-Info headers are indeed subject > to the usual rules regarding MIME parameters That's documented elsewhere, don't mention it. > including RFC 2231. Never ever mention it, arguably it allows weird stuff like boundary*0=next; boundary*1=" "; boundary*2=part Somewhere it says "MUST NOT change the syntax", and the next thing it does is to change the syntax. I really don't like it. | IMPORTANT NOTE: These mechanisms end up being somewhat | gibbous when they actually are used. As such, these | mechanisms should not be used lightly; they should be | reserved for situations where a real need for them exists. With the simple rule "remove FWS and concatenate" for URLs there is no real need for RfC 2231, just use the syntax in Can we get rid of the new "filename" parameter of "Archive" ? Common practice is X-NoArchive: yes, and that's of course weird, but the only relevant case. Almost nobody (*) uses "Summary" or "Keywords", and another irrelevant "filename" in a new "Archive" won't fly. Martin's new "Archived-At" is a good idea, and Usenet will inherit it. Without the dubious "filename" in a completely new "Archive" you'd have eliminated the last reason to mention RfC 2231, and that's a good thing. Bye, Frank *: for "almost nobody uses it" read "I don't use it" ;-) 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 iAMCCe2C049606 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 2004 04:12:41 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAMCCcbA049579 for ietf-usefor-skb; Mon, 22 Nov 2004 04:12:38 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp803.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp803.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.140]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id iAMCCV4I049415 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 2004 04:12:36 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-67-7.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.67.7 with poptime) by smtp803.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 22 Nov 2004 12:12:27 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id iAMCCGV03354 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Mon, 22 Nov 2004 12:12:16 GMT To: LIST: ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20301 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <9KhLNobXw-B@khms.westfalen.de> <200411191051.57185.blilly@erols.com> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 11:27:14 GMT Lines: 36 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <200411191051.57185.blilly@erols.com> Bruce Lilly writes: >On Mon November 15 2004 06:27, Charles Lindsey wrote: >> If anyone thinks they are not orthogonal (i.e. would vote differently on >> one of them according to the result of the other, then please speak up). >They are not orthogonal (I might very well vote differently on >any one issue based on outcome of any of the others, if there >were separate independent votes). There are really six distinct >options involved in the three issues listed, as well as other >options that should be considered. >And before we get as far as an actual vote, we ought to set >some ground rules: there are many different voting systems, >each having distinct characteristics (e.g. >http://condorcet.org/emr/methods.shtml >),... It is ultimately up to our Chair how he uses straw votes to decide which option has the best consensus. But if we give our preferences as an ordered list of options, then the method devised by the Marquis de Condorcet has much to commend it (we used that method once before when we had a straw poll here, and it is regularly used with some success when we have CFVs in uk.*). -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 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 iAMCCftp049607 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 2004 04:12:41 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAMCCcUv049580 for ietf-usefor-skb; Mon, 22 Nov 2004 04:12:38 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp803.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp803.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.140]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id iAMCCWVp049426 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 2004 04:12:36 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-67-7.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.67.7 with poptime) by smtp803.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 22 Nov 2004 12:12:28 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id iAMCCHl03362 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Mon, 22 Nov 2004 12:12:17 GMT To: LIST: ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20302 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <87sm7qwnse.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <200411201119.32742.blilly@erols.com> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 11:37:55 GMT Lines: 41 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <200411201119.32742.blilly@erols.com> Bruce Lilly writes: >On Thu November 4 2004 11:20, Charles Lindsey wrote: >> and things >> must be so that a user who has News access but no Web access is not >> disadvantaged. >That is specious for two reasons: >1. we are discussing an Internet Standards Track RFC, which > is applicable for the Internet and does not impose any > requirements on non-Internet use of news. Usenet is not a part of the internet, but 99% of Usenet traffic is in fact carried on the internet, so it makes good sense to standardize it under the auspices of the IETF. So far as I am aware, it has never been the case that the IETF expects that all known internet protocols should be presumed to be available to all internet users, and therefore internet standards do not normally make such presumptions. >2. ... -- under some conditions > a particular group of users might have access to HTTP and NNTP > (but not SMTP) or to NNTP and SMTP (but not HTTP) or to HTTP > alone (and it is possible to read and post news via web interfaces). Yes, but you know perfectly well that it is unusual for News users not to have Email capability, whereas lack of access to the web is less uncommon (for example to people using simple terminals or terminal emulators - I have not tried filling in an abuse web form using Linx, but I doubt it would be an easy task). -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 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 iAMCCepX049604 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 2004 04:12:41 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAMCCb84049574 for ietf-usefor-skb; Mon, 22 Nov 2004 04:12:37 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp803.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp803.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.140]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id iAMCCVsC049404 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 2004 04:12:36 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-67-7.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.67.7 with poptime) by smtp803.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 22 Nov 2004 12:12:27 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id iAMCCFJ03350 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Mon, 22 Nov 2004 12:12:15 GMT To: LIST: ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20300 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <87u0s5oa3c.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <200411190857.50669.blilly@erols.com> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 11:20:33 GMT Lines: 33 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <200411190857.50669.blilly@erols.com> Bruce Lilly writes: >On Fri November 5 2004 12:36, Charles Lindsey wrote: >> Actually, there is no real reason ever to use the RFC 2231 parameter >> splitting in News I should have been more specific and said I was refering particularly to the case of the Archive and Injection-Info headers, which are news-specific. >Wrong. We have agreed that MIME is to be used, it is obvious that >mail<->news gateways exist, and RFC 2231 is part of the MIME >specification. Sure, if cruft comes in from mail, then we have to accept it as it is. But if you are writing an article for the news environment in the first place, then my remark stands. BTW, the USEFOR draft needs to make it clear that these parameters in the Archive and Injection-Info headers are indeed subject to the usual rules regarding MIME parameters, including RFC 2231. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 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 iAMCCeDB049605 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 2004 04:12:41 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAMCCcCj049578 for ietf-usefor-skb; Mon, 22 Nov 2004 04:12:38 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp803.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp803.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.140]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id iAMCCXiu049436 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 2004 04:12:36 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-67-7.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.67.7 with poptime) by smtp803.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 22 Nov 2004 12:12:29 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id iAMCCK303377 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Mon, 22 Nov 2004 12:12:20 GMT To: LIST: ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20303 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: ***SPAM-3*** Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <4198F210.1049@xyzzy.claranet.de> <200411190923.17497.blilly@erols.com> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 11:42:28 GMT Lines: 60 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <200411190923.17497.blilly@erols.com> Bruce Lilly writes: >On Tue November 16 2004 06:34, Charles Lindsey wrote: >> OK, so I think you are suggesting the following possibilities: >> >> 1. Use Injection-Info with parameter mail-complaints-to=
>> (leaving the possibility open for a separate URL extension later). >> >> 2. Use Injection-Info with parameter mail-complaints-to=
AND with >> a separate complaints-url= (with explicit permission to fold it by >> inserting FWS/CFWS at any point, cf RFC 2017 ???). >> >> 3. Use Complaints-To with
only >> >> 4. Use complaints to with
OR (I think these can be >> distinguished syntactically fairly easily). >You are wrong; the syntax is very close and may pose problems for >some types of parsers. I think you could easily distinguish them using no more than regular expressions. > If you really thought the syntax was easily >distinguishable, then you would have proposed a single parameter >rather than two parameters in #2. I didn't propose it. It was Frank's idea (though a good idea IMO). >> Explicit permission to fold >> the URL as above. >RFC 2017 applies only to parameters in a Content-Type field; >is is inapplicable to any other field. If we write in our standard that RFC 2017, or something like it, applies, then it will apply. > >> Any other options anyone wants? >5.... >6. ... >7. ... Fine, include those if you like. I note that you have not actually expressed any order of preference yet. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 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 iAKJ1vEf068309 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 2004 11:01:57 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAKJ1ubU068308 for ietf-usefor-skb; Sat, 20 Nov 2004 11:01:56 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp04.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp04.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.63]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAKJ1uUQ068301 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 2004 11:01:56 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from blilly@erols.com) X-Info: This message was accepted for relay by smtp04.mrf.mail.rcn.net as the sender used SMTP authentication X-Trace: hUHp/fdkah7wIZrG4UQdeu+T4JbFIjL37fauHnwS8WM= Received: from wireless-12-40-111-107.bryantpark.org ([12.40.111.107] helo=mail.blilly.com) by smtp04.mrf.mail.rcn.net with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #7) id 1CVaUh-0001IU-00; Sat, 20 Nov 2004 14:01:59 -0500 Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.blilly.com with ESMTP id iAKJ1ecJ005183(8.12.10/8.12.10/mail.blilly.com sendmail.mc.mail 1.18 2004/05/15 07:23:45) ; Sat, 20 Nov 2004 14:01:42 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by marty.blilly.com with ESMTP id iAKJ1YF7005181(8.12.10/8.12.10/blilly.com submit.mc 1.1 2003/08/26 22:21:33) ; Sat, 20 Nov 2004 14:01:38 -0500 From: Bruce Lilly Reply-To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Organization: Bruce Lilly To: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 11:19:32 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 Cc: ietf-usefor@imc.org References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <87sm7qwnse.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200411201119.32742.blilly@erols.com> Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Thu November 4 2004 11:20, Charles Lindsey wrote: > It needs > to be made clear that Netnews and the Web are different media, As (regarding access to services and transport) news and mail are different forms of transport. > and things > must be so that a user who has News access but no Web access is not > disadvantaged. That is specious for two reasons: 1. we are discussing an Internet Standards Track RFC, which is applicable for the Internet and does not impose any requirements on non-Internet use of news. 2. within the domain of the specification (viz. the Internet), there is no reason to differentiate between HTTP, email, etc. access; they are all viable services -- under some conditions a particular group of users might have access to HTTP and NNTP (but not SMTP) or to NNTP and SMTP (but not HTTP) or to HTTP alone (and it is possible to read and post news via web interfaces). 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 iAKJ1sjK068281 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 2004 11:01:54 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAKJ1sDF068270 for ietf-usefor-skb; Sat, 20 Nov 2004 11:01:54 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp04.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp04.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.63]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAKJ1reC068263 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 2004 11:01:54 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from blilly@erols.com) X-Info: This message was accepted for relay by smtp04.mrf.mail.rcn.net as the sender used SMTP authentication X-Trace: hUHp/fdkah458W79iblXe2CBeWyQEG/cVQTqX25TGzU= Received: from wireless-12-40-111-107.bryantpark.org ([12.40.111.107] helo=mail.blilly.com) by smtp04.mrf.mail.rcn.net with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #7) id 1CVaUe-0001Jw-00; Sat, 20 Nov 2004 14:01:57 -0500 Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.blilly.com with ESMTP id iAKJ1ecN005183(8.12.10/8.12.10/mail.blilly.com sendmail.mc.mail 1.18 2004/05/15 07:23:45) ; Sat, 20 Nov 2004 14:01:53 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by marty.blilly.com with ESMTP id iAKJ1YF9005181(8.12.10/8.12.10/blilly.com submit.mc 1.1 2003/08/26 22:21:33) ; Sat, 20 Nov 2004 14:01:52 -0500 From: Bruce Lilly Reply-To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Organization: Bruce Lilly To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: ***SPAM-3*** Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 11:44:22 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 Cc: "Charles Lindsey" References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <200411190923.17497.blilly@erols.com> In-Reply-To: <200411190923.17497.blilly@erols.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200411201144.22926.blilly@erols.com> Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Fri November 19 2004 09:23, Bruce Lilly wrote: > > On Tue November 16 2004 06:34, Charles Lindsey wrote: > > Any other options anyone wants? 8. A separate field whose field body specifies a list of URIs (so that multiple supported alternative methods of reporting abuse can be specified), perhaps something like the (incompletely- specified) List- fields of RFC 2369. 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 iAKJ1qTL068251 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 2004 11:01:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAKJ1qUw068250 for ietf-usefor-skb; Sat, 20 Nov 2004 11:01:52 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp04.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp04.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.63]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAKJ1mn4068219 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 2004 11:01:48 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from blilly@erols.com) X-Info: This message was accepted for relay by smtp04.mrf.mail.rcn.net as the sender used SMTP authentication X-Trace: hUHp/fdkah7be6/xmD3vfnb/S3+Y4osI489kegEgJag= Received: from wireless-12-40-111-107.bryantpark.org ([12.40.111.107] helo=mail.blilly.com) by smtp04.mrf.mail.rcn.net with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #7) id 1CVaUY-0001JG-00; Sat, 20 Nov 2004 14:01:50 -0500 Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.blilly.com with ESMTP id iAKJ1ecL005183(8.12.10/8.12.10/mail.blilly.com sendmail.mc.mail 1.18 2004/05/15 07:23:45) ; Sat, 20 Nov 2004 14:01:47 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by marty.blilly.com with ESMTP id iAKJ1YF8005181(8.12.10/8.12.10/blilly.com submit.mc 1.1 2003/08/26 22:21:33) ; Sat, 20 Nov 2004 14:01:46 -0500 From: Bruce Lilly Reply-To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Organization: Bruce Lilly To: "Scott Hollenbeck" Subject: RE: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 11:26:22 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 Cc: ietf-usefor@imc.org References: <7468147AEE316B41B3B55152959CE218129253@dul1wnexm05.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> In-Reply-To: <7468147AEE316B41B3B55152959CE218129253@dul1wnexm05.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200411201126.22545.blilly@erols.com> Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Fri November 19 2004 11:11, Scott Hollenbeck wrote: > Confirming the last sentence: the IETF does not use voting to determine > consensus. > > OK, OK, I know that we *do* use hums and straw polls, which may be > considered a form of voting, to help determine consensus. See section 3.3 > of RFC 2418 for guidelines describing what should be done to determine > consensus. RFC 3929 may also be helpful for issues that are particularly > contentious. > > -Scott- > (speaking as area advisor) Just to avoid misinterpretation of my remarks as criticism of the Chair, I'd like to clarify two points: 1. Although there was some concern about an early "60%" criterion, the Chair has since affirmed that voting is not intended to be used to determine consensus 2. The Chair did not initiate discussion of a "vote" or a euphemism for a vote (e.g. "count heads") in this matter. Regarding "straw polls", my remarks about voting still largely apply; we need to agree on methods, ensure that *all* points of view are represented *fairly*, etc. 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 iAK6cpxY015044 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 2004 22:38:51 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAK6cpsW015043 for ietf-usefor-skb; Fri, 19 Nov 2004 22:38:51 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAK6clxD014975 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 2004 22:38:48 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CVOta-0005Ri-00 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 2004 07:38:54 +0100 Received: from du-001-137.access.de.clara.net ([212.82.227.137]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 2004 07:38:54 +0100 Received: from nobody by du-001-137.access.de.clara.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 2004 07:38:54 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Is this a STraw Poll? Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 07:37:33 +0100 Organization: Lines: 21 Message-ID: <419EE62D.14B1@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <87oeicrzj4.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87r7n4rzln.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <9KhLNobXw-B@khms.westfalen.de> <4198F210.1049@xyzzy.claranet.de> <419CD6A4.6010402@isode.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: du-001-137.access.de.clara.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Charles Lindsey wrote: > my order is #3, #1, (|), #2, #4 [Alexey wrote] >> I would prefer #2, followed by #1 and #3. [...] >> "mail-complaint-to" SHOULD be present. My preference is the same incl. this SHOULD and FWS folding. Without FWS folding (= only 2231) it's #1 before #3. I've seen Bruce's #5, #6, #7, but I don't like these ideas. While Bruce and Scott discuss RfC 2418 I've another off topic question: My normal reaction to a poll is to send a private mail, and then wait for the published result. Is that how it's supposed to work ? With the IETF I never know, all this "humming" in conjunction with RfC 3710 chapter 4.3 sounds like "scientology" for me. Bye, Frank 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 iAK3CgKI032571 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 2004 19:12:42 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAK3Cgda032561 for ietf-usefor-skb; Fri, 19 Nov 2004 19:12:42 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp802.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp802.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.139]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id iAK3Ceap032513 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 2004 19:12:41 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-65-216.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.65.216 with poptime) by smtp802.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 20 Nov 2004 03:12:26 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id iAJHCBE27396 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Fri, 19 Nov 2004 17:12:11 GMT To: LIST: ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20291 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Is this a STraw Poll? (was Standardize Complaints-To as deployed) Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <87oeicrzj4.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87r7n4rzln.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <9KhLNobXw-B@khms.westfalen.de> <4198F210.1049@xyzzy.claranet.de> <419CD6A4.6010402@isode.com> Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 14:49:50 GMT Lines: 60 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <419CD6A4.6010402@isode.com> Alexey Melnikov writes: >Charles Lindsey wrote: >>OK, so I think you are suggesting the following possibilities: Alexey has given his preference order as #2, #1, #3, #4. Does this mean we are all supposed to express out preference order now? If so, then my order is #3, #1, (|), #2, #4 The "(|)" in the middle is my consenus limit (i.e. I could live with anything to the left of it, but would be most unhappy with anything to the right). >> >>1. Use Injection-Info with parameter mail-complaints-to=
>> (leaving the possibility open for a separate URL extension later). >> >>2. Use Injection-Info with parameter mail-complaints-to=
AND with >> a separate complaints-url= (with explicit permission to fold it by >> inserting FWS/CFWS at any point, cf RFC 2017 ???). >> >> >(FWS, as noticed by Frank.) agreed. >I would prefer #2, followed by #1 and #3. >As a chair I would note that I see no consensus to use mail-complaint-to >over complaints-url. Nor does there seem to be any consensus for the opposite. >As a WG participant I would be Ok with saying that the >"mail-complaint-to" SHOULD be present. Ah! You mean that those who want to give a (non-mailto) URL SHOULD give a mail-address as well. Yes, I could live with that >>3. Use Complaints-To with
only >> >>4. Use complaints to with
OR (I think these can be >> distinguished syntactically fairly easily). Explicit permission to fold >> the URL as above. >> >> >I don't think # 4 is a good architectural choice. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 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 iAJGBE92010752 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 2004 08:11:14 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAJGBE3X010751 for ietf-usefor-skb; Fri, 19 Nov 2004 08:11:14 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mail.verisignlabs.com (cliffie.verisignlabs.com [65.201.175.9]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAJGBDq5010736 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 2004 08:11:13 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from sah@428cobrajet.net) Received: from dul1shollenbl1 ([::ffff:216.168.239.87]) (AUTH: LOGIN shollenb, SSL: TLSv1/SSLv3,128bits,RC4-MD5) by mail.verisignlabs.com with esmtp; Fri, 19 Nov 2004 11:11:06 -0500 id 005442EC.419E1B1A.00005A7D From: "Scott Hollenbeck" To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: RE: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 11:11:16 -0500 Message-ID: <7468147AEE316B41B3B55152959CE218129253@dul1wnexm05.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 In-Reply-To: <200411191051.57185.blilly@erols.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: > And before we get as far as an actual vote, we ought to set > some ground rules: there are many different voting systems, > each having distinct characteristics (e.g. > http://condorcet.org/emr/methods.shtml > ), we need to agree on what options are to be voted on (should > include *all* viable options), on wording of the options (which > should be fair and representative), when voting will commence > and end, mechanics of the voting procedure, how results will > be used, etc. For that matter, we ought to revisit the issue of > whether voting is an appropriate means for the Chair to assess > consensus. Confirming the last sentence: the IETF does not use voting to determine consensus. OK, OK, I know that we *do* use hums and straw polls, which may be considered a form of voting, to help determine consensus. See section 3.3 of RFC 2418 for guidelines describing what should be done to determine consensus. RFC 3929 may also be helpful for issues that are particularly contentious. -Scott- (speaking as area advisor) 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 iAJG0MDQ007494 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 2004 08:00:22 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAJG0LSO007492 for ietf-usefor-skb; Fri, 19 Nov 2004 08:00:21 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.61]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAJG0D98007430 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 2004 08:00:17 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from blilly@erols.com) X-Info: This message was accepted for relay by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net as the sender used SMTP authentication X-Trace: u/8ZQQoIFPxJYlGrwhgRMOHvdOMNN2DZfqGYGFAyhRg= Received: from 65.105.220.34.ptr.us.xo.net ([65.105.220.34] helo=mail.blilly.com) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #7) id 1CVBBH-0002jz-00; Fri, 19 Nov 2004 11:00:15 -0500 Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.blilly.com with ESMTP id iAJG0AYT021752(8.12.10/8.12.10/mail.blilly.com sendmail.mc.mail 1.18 2004/05/15 07:23:45) ; Fri, 19 Nov 2004 11:00:14 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by marty.blilly.com with ESMTP id iAJG099j021751(8.12.10/8.12.10/blilly.com submit.mc 1.1 2003/08/26 22:21:33) ; Fri, 19 Nov 2004 11:00:14 -0500 From: Bruce Lilly Reply-To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Organization: Bruce Lilly To: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 10:51:56 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 Cc: ietf-usefor@imc.org References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <9KhLNobXw-B@khms.westfalen.de> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200411191051.57185.blilly@erols.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Mon November 15 2004 06:27, Charles Lindsey wrote: > If anyone thinks they are not orthogonal (i.e. would vote differently on > one of them according to the result of the other, then please speak up). They are not orthogonal (I might very well vote differently on any one issue based on outcome of any of the others, if there were separate independent votes). There are really six distinct options involved in the three issues listed, as well as other options that should be considered. And before we get as far as an actual vote, we ought to set some ground rules: there are many different voting systems, each having distinct characteristics (e.g. http://condorcet.org/emr/methods.shtml ), we need to agree on what options are to be voted on (should include *all* viable options), on wording of the options (which should be fair and representative), when voting will commence and end, mechanics of the voting procedure, how results will be used, etc. For that matter, we ought to revisit the issue of whether voting is an appropriate means for the Chair to assess consensus. 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 iAJG0Mmq007495 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 2004 08:00:22 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAJG0Lpd007493 for ietf-usefor-skb; Fri, 19 Nov 2004 08:00:22 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.61]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAJG0C0M007429 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 2004 08:00:17 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from blilly@erols.com) X-Info: This message was accepted for relay by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net as the sender used SMTP authentication X-Trace: u/8ZQQoIFPwb02ZKDS1EdyBaMfeWjh9dBYVnmGN5+1M= Received: from 65.105.220.34.ptr.us.xo.net ([65.105.220.34] helo=mail.blilly.com) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #7) id 1CVBBG-0002jd-00; Fri, 19 Nov 2004 11:00:14 -0500 Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.blilly.com with ESMTP id iAJG0AYR021752(8.12.10/8.12.10/mail.blilly.com sendmail.mc.mail 1.18 2004/05/15 07:23:45) ; Fri, 19 Nov 2004 11:00:12 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by marty.blilly.com with ESMTP id iAJG099i021751(8.12.10/8.12.10/blilly.com submit.mc 1.1 2003/08/26 22:21:33) ; Fri, 19 Nov 2004 11:00:12 -0500 From: Bruce Lilly Reply-To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Organization: Bruce Lilly To: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: ***SPAM-3*** Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 09:23:17 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 Cc: ietf-usefor@imc.org References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <4198F210.1049@xyzzy.claranet.de> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200411190923.17497.blilly@erols.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Tue November 16 2004 06:34, Charles Lindsey wrote: > OK, so I think you are suggesting the following possibilities: > > 1. Use Injection-Info with parameter mail-complaints-to=
> (leaving the possibility open for a separate URL extension later). > > 2. Use Injection-Info with parameter mail-complaints-to=
AND with > a separate complaints-url= (with explicit permission to fold it by > inserting FWS/CFWS at any point, cf RFC 2017 ???). > > 3. Use Complaints-To with
only > > 4. Use complaints to with
OR (I think these can be > distinguished syntactically fairly easily). You are wrong; the syntax is very close and may pose problems for some types of parsers. If you really thought the syntax was easily distinguishable, then you would have proposed a single parameter rather than two parameters in #2. > Explicit permission to fold > the URL as above. RFC 2017 applies only to parameters in a Content-Type field; is is inapplicable to any other field. > Any other options anyone wants? 5. A separate field (complaints-to perhaps, but the tag name is a separate issue) specifying a URI. Handling of long URIs to be determined. 6. Table the matter and continue with more pressing business. Reconsider the matter when we have produced the two Standards Track RFCs that were supposed to have been produced a year ago. 7. Defer the matter to a general (not news-specific) header field. 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 iAJG0Mip007496 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 2004 08:00:22 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAJG0MQX007491 for ietf-usefor-skb; Fri, 19 Nov 2004 08:00:22 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.61]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAJG0Cm1007420 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 2004 08:00:17 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from blilly@erols.com) X-Info: This message was accepted for relay by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net as the sender used SMTP authentication X-Trace: u/8ZQQoIFPwvSzPApSjMqbLELoFgckqUCmhf4d5aStg= Received: from 65.105.220.34.ptr.us.xo.net ([65.105.220.34] helo=mail.blilly.com) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #7) id 1CVBBE-0002jM-00; Fri, 19 Nov 2004 11:00:12 -0500 Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.blilly.com with ESMTP id iAJG0AYP021752(8.12.10/8.12.10/mail.blilly.com sendmail.mc.mail 1.18 2004/05/15 07:23:45) ; Fri, 19 Nov 2004 11:00:10 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by marty.blilly.com with ESMTP id iAJG099h021751(8.12.10/8.12.10/blilly.com submit.mc 1.1 2003/08/26 22:21:33) ; Fri, 19 Nov 2004 11:00:10 -0500 From: Bruce Lilly Reply-To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Organization: Bruce Lilly To: Charles Lindsey Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 08:57:50 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 Cc: ietf-usefor@imc.org References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <87u0s5oa3c.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200411190857.50669.blilly@erols.com> Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Fri November 5 2004 12:36, Charles Lindsey wrote: > Actually, there is no real reason ever to use the RFC 2231 parameter > splitting in News Wrong. We have agreed that MIME is to be used, it is obvious that mail<->news gateways exist, and RFC 2231 is part of the MIME specification. 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 iAIH6mR5044685 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 2004 09:06:48 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAIH6mRN044684 for ietf-usefor-skb; Thu, 18 Nov 2004 09:06:48 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAIH6lf9044669 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 2004 09:06:48 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from alexey.melnikov-usefor@isode.com) Received: from [172.16.0.116] (shiny.isode.com [62.3.217.250]) by rufus.isode.com via TCP (internal) with ESMTPA; Thu, 18 Nov 2004 17:06:46 +0000 Message-ID: <419CD6A4.6010402@isode.com> Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 17:06:44 +0000 From: Alexey Melnikov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Charles Lindsey CC: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <87oeicrzj4.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87r7n4rzln.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <9KhLNobXw-B@khms.westfalen.de> <4198F210.1049@xyzzy.claranet.de> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Charles Lindsey wrote: >In <4198F210.1049@xyzzy.claranet.de> Frank Ellermann writes: > > >>Charles Lindsey wrote: >> >> >>>If anyone thinks they are not orthogonal (i.e. would vote >>>differently on one of them according to the result of the >>>other, then please speak up). >>> >>> >>With "2" (Injection-Info) it's possible to have both options. >>I'd say "no" to URLs unless there's an explicit folding rule >>derived from 2017. A simple mailbox address should be okay, >>independent of any URL option. Restricting URLs to mailto: >>is a bad idea. >> > >OK, so I think you are suggesting the following possibilities: > >1. Use Injection-Info with parameter mail-complaints-to=
> (leaving the possibility open for a separate URL extension later). > >2. Use Injection-Info with parameter mail-complaints-to=
AND with > a separate complaints-url= (with explicit permission to fold it by > inserting FWS/CFWS at any point, cf RFC 2017 ???). > > (FWS, as noticed by Frank.) I would prefer #2, followed by #1 and #3. As a chair I would note that I see no consensus to use mail-complaint-to over complaints-url. As a WG participant I would be Ok with saying that the "mail-complaint-to" SHOULD be present. >3. Use Complaints-To with
only > >4. Use complaints to with
OR (I think these can be > distinguished syntactically fairly easily). Explicit permission to fold > the URL as above. > > I don't think # 4 is a good architectural choice. >Any other options anyone wants? > > 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 iAGMlL03066161 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 14:47:21 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAGMlL6h066160 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 14:47:21 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAGMlIaO066054 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 14:47:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CUC6U-0006lJ-00 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 23:47:14 +0100 Received: from 212.82.251.37 ([212.82.251.37]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 23:47:14 +0100 Received: from nobody by 212.82.251.37 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 23:47:14 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 23:45:48 +0100 Organization: Lines: 17 Message-ID: <419A831C.461D@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <87oeicrzj4.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87r7n4rzln.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <9KhLNobXw-B@khms.westfalen.de> <4198F210.1049@xyzzy.claranet.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.82.251.37 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Charles Lindsey wrote: Only one minor point: > complaints-url= (with explicit permission to fold > it by inserting FWS/CFWS at any point, cf RFC 2017 ???). Not CFWS, only FWS. Bruce found IMHO no serious problem in the proposed syntax, the details of RfC 2396bis like reserved char.s are irrelevant for your draft and Usenet. (Let the IESG and W3C fight it out if something in 2396bis doesn't work with mailto:, IRIs, zone IDs, or whatever ;-) BTW, I asked the author of 2821 about the weird host TV, it's intentionally at least one dot in SMTP domains, Bye. 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 iAGC0JQN083093 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 04:00:19 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAGC0Jg8083092 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 04:00:19 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp806.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp806.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.196]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id iAGC0IZr082969 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 04:00:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-73-129.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.73.129 with poptime) by smtp806.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 16 Nov 2004 11:59:58 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id iAGBxhY27892 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 11:59:43 GMT To: LIST: ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20288 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: ***SPAM-3*** Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <87oeicrzj4.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87r7n4rzln.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <9KhLNobXw-B@khms.westfalen.de> <4198F210.1049@xyzzy.claranet.de> Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 11:34:18 GMT Lines: 41 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <4198F210.1049@xyzzy.claranet.de> Frank Ellermann writes: >Charles Lindsey wrote: > >> If anyone thinks they are not orthogonal (i.e. would vote >> differently on one of them according to the result of the >> other, then please speak up). >With "2" (Injection-Info) it's possible to have both options. >I'd say "no" to URLs unless there's an explicit folding rule >derived from 2017. A simple mailbox address should be okay, >independent of any URL option. Restricting URLs to mailto: >is a bad idea. OK, so I think you are suggesting the following possibilities: 1. Use Injection-Info with parameter mail-complaints-to=
(leaving the possibility open for a separate URL extension later). 2. Use Injection-Info with parameter mail-complaints-to=
AND with a separate complaints-url= (with explicit permission to fold it by inserting FWS/CFWS at any point, cf RFC 2017 ???). 3. Use Complaints-To with
only 4. Use complaints to with
OR (I think these can be distinguished syntactically fairly easily). Explicit permission to fold the URL as above. Any other options anyone wants? -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 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 iAGC0Gv7083049 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 04:00:16 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAGC0G2c083046 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 04:00:16 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp806.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp806.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.196]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id iAGC0F8N082656 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 04:00:15 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-73-129.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.73.129 with poptime) by smtp806.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 16 Nov 2004 11:59:59 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id iAGBxg527888 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 11:59:42 GMT To: LIST: ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20287 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: draft-ietf-usefor-usepro-01.txt Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 11:21:57 GMT Lines: 187 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: There was some discussion regarding this a month back. I am now preparing draft-usepro-02. Here are some of the new bits of text related to the discussions we had. Much of what you see here is pieces of existing text that were expected to migrate to USEFOR, but in the event have come back here. All that is new in the Control Messages section is a pointer to the Duties of a Relaying Agent for handling non-existent newsgroups, the removal of a sentence which Russ did not like (and which will reappear in some form in USEAGE), and the obsoleting of the "cmsg" hack. 6. Control Messages The following sections document the control messages. "Message" is used herein as a synonym for "article" unless context indicates otherwise. The Newsgroups-header of each control message SHOULD include the newsgroup-name(s) for the group(s) affected (i.e. groups to be created, modified or removed, or containing articles to be canceled). This is to ensure that the message propagates to all sites which receive (or would receive) that group(s). It MAY include other newsgroup-names so as to improve propagation (but this practice may cause the control message to propagate also to places where it is unwanted, or even cause it not to propagate where it should, so it should not be used without good reason). NOTE: Propagation is controlled by relaying agents, and it may be necessary for relaying agents to take special steps to ensure that control messages such as newgroup messages for not-yet- existent newsgroups are propagated correctly (see 7.3). [The first of those paragraphs was originally scheduled to be moved to USEFOR (and it may yet be so moved). It has been reinstated here (at least temporarily) to make sure that it does not get overlooked.] The presence of a Subject-content starting with the string "cmsg " and followed by a was construed under [RFC 1036] as a request to perform that control action (even if no genuine Control header was present). Indeed, some implementations went further and added the implied Control header before injecting. Likewise, the presence of a newsgroup-name ending in ".ctl" in the Newsgroups header caused the Subject header content (not starting with "cmsg" in this case) to be interpreted as a . All these practices are now declared to be Obsolete, and Subject headers MUST NOT now be interpreted as s under any circumstances. The descriptions below set out REQUIREMENTS to be followed by sites that receive control messages and choose to honour them. However, nothing in these descriptions should be taken as overriding the right of any such site, in accordance with its local policy, to refuse to honour any particular control message, or to refer it to an administrator for approval (either as a class or on a case-by-case basis). In the following sections, each type of control message is defined syntactically by defining its verb, its arguments, and possibly its body. 6.1. Digital Signature of Headers It is most desirable that group control messages (6.2) in particular be authenticated by incorporating them within some digital signature scheme that encompasses other headers closely associated with them (including at least the Approved-, Message-ID- and Date-headers). At the time of writing, this is usually done by means of a protocol known as "PGPverify" ([PGPVERIFY]), and continued usage of this is encouraged at least as an interim measure. However, PGPverify is not considered suitable for standardization in its present form, for various technical reasons. It is therefore expected that an early extension to this standard will provide a robust and general purpose digital authentication mechanism with applicability to all situations requiring protection against malicious use of, or interference with, headers. That extension would also address other Netnews security issues. 7.3. Duties of a Relaying Agent A Relaying Agent accepts injected articles from injecting and other relaying agents and passes them on to relaying or serving agents according to mutually agreed policy. Relaying agents SHOULD accept articles ONLY from trusted agents. An article SHOULD NOT be relayed unless the sending agent has been configured to supply and the receiving agent to receive at least one of the newsgroup-names in its Newsgroups-header and at least one of the distributions in its Distribution-header, if any. Exceptionally, ALL relaying agents are deemed willing to supply or accept the distribution "world", and NO relaying agent should supply or accept the distribution "local". However, if the particular implementation does not relay non-existent newsgroups, even when included in the Newsgroups-header and implied (e.g. by some "wild card" notation) in the configuration tables, then the agent MUST examine all group control messages (6.2) in order to ensure that relaying of those messages proceeds normally. ............ In order to avoid unnecessary relaying, an article SHOULD NOT be relayed if the path-identity of the receiving agent (or some known alias thereof) appears in its Path-header. [Removed mention of similar checks at the receiving end, which apparently are seldom done.] A relaying agent processes articles as follows: ............ 3. It SHOULD reject any article that does not include all the mandatory headers (section a-5). 4. It MAY reject any article whose headers do not have legal contents. ............ 7.4. Duties of a Serving Agent ............ A serving agent MAY decline to accept an article if the Path-content contains some path-identity whose articles the serving agent does not want, as a matter of local policy. NOTE: This last facility is sometimes used to detect and decline control messages (notably cancel messages) which have been deliberately seeded with a path-identity to be "aliased out" by sites not wishing to act upon them. [INN at least does this. It might be argued that it is not necessary to mention it here.] A serving agent processes articles as follows: ............ 3. It MUST reject any article that does not include all the mandatory headers (section a-5), or which contains any header that does not have legal contents. [That is mentioned here mainly for comparison with the altered wording under Relaying Agents.] ............ 7.7. Duties of a Reading Agent A reading agent downloads articles from a serving agent, as directed by the reader, and displays them (or processes them in some other manner), subject to any limitations of the reading agent, such as availability of charsets, and having first decoded any Content- Transfer-Encodings, encoded-words, etc. It SHOULD also have the capability to show the raw article exactly as received. [That wording has been toned down, as requested by John Stanley.] It MAY present lists of articles available for display, and MAY structure those lists so as to show the relationships between the articles, as determined by the References-, Subject-, Date- and other-headers (see [USEAGE] for some usual methods of doing this). [A sentence regarding rejection of articles with unwanted distributions has been removed, and will reappear in USEAGE.] [This whole section may yet get omitted] On top of the changes noted above, I am working on some further changes, mainly in the form of texts that were expected to appear in USEFOR, but will now appear in USEPRO following discussions with our Chair. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 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 iAFIFtum064836 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 10:15:55 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAFIFt3k064835 for ietf-usefor-skb; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 10:15:55 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAFIFpim064827 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 10:15:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CTlOE-0004Md-00 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 19:15:46 +0100 Received: from c-134-93-1.hh.dial.de.ignite.net ([62.134.93.1]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 19:15:46 +0100 Received: from nobody by c-134-93-1.hh.dial.de.ignite.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 19:15:46 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 19:14:40 +0100 Organization: Lines: 13 Message-ID: <4198F210.1049@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <87oeicrzj4.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87r7n4rzln.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <9KhLNobXw-B@khms.westfalen.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: c-134-93-1.hh.dial.de.ignite.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Charles Lindsey wrote: > If anyone thinks they are not orthogonal (i.e. would vote > differently on one of them according to the result of the > other, then please speak up). With "2" (Injection-Info) it's possible to have both options. I'd say "no" to URLs unless there's an explicit folding rule derived from 2017. A simple mailbox address should be okay, independent of any URL option. Restricting URLs to mailto: is a bad idea. Bye, Frank (Complaints-To: ;-) 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 iAFHCkvZ047408 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 09:12:46 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAFHCkP0047407 for ietf-usefor-skb; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 09:12:46 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp812.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp812.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.202]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id iAFHCjCv047321 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 09:12:45 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-77-228.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.77.228 with poptime) by smtp812.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 15 Nov 2004 17:12:32 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id iAFCG9O15899 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 12:16:09 GMT To: LIST: ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20285 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <87oeicrzj4.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87r7n4rzln.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <9KhLNobXw-B@khms.westfalen.de> Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 11:27:01 GMT Lines: 34 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <9KhLNobXw-B@khms.westfalen.de> kaih@khms.westfalen.de (Kai Henningsen) writes: >chl@clerew.man.ac.uk (Charles Lindsey) wrote on 09.11.04 in : >> Hideously bad it may be, but I don't think you are going to find >> consensus on this list for anything else. >There'll be no consensus for no-urls either. Well I think all our arguments have been well rehearsed by now, so please coud our CHair count heads and announce a decision. Essentially, there are two issues to decide, more or less orthogonal: 1. Should the complaints address be given as an email address or as a URL (with a side issue of whether any such URL be restricted to 'mailto' only)? 2. Should whatever is done be done in the context os a Complaints-To header, or in the context of an extra parameter to Injection-Info? If anyone thinks they are not orthogonal (i.e. would vote differently on one of them according to the result of the other, then please speak up). -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 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 iAA0ZDC1077768 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2004 16:35:13 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAA0ZDdI077767 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 9 Nov 2004 16:35:13 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp3.Stanford.EDU (smtp3.Stanford.EDU [171.67.16.138]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAA0ZDZj077760 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2004 16:35:13 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp3.Stanford.EDU (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id iAA0ZIcJ009078 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2004 16:35:18 -0800 Received: (qmail 21660 invoked by uid 1000); 10 Nov 2004 00:35:17 -0000 To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? In-Reply-To: <20041110000028.GA25763@dora.tertius.net.au> (thorfinn@tertius.net.au's message of "Wed, 10 Nov 2004 11:00:28 +1100") References: <4188CAD0.1080902@isode.com> <41895E2E.5C57@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87sm7qwnse.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <418A41B4.7498@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87u0s5oa3c.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <418B6F21.5A5D@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87oeicrzj4.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87r7n4rzln.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <20041110000028.GA25763@dora.tertius.net.au> From: Russ Allbery Organization: The Eyrie Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 16:35:17 -0800 Message-ID: <87bre6r16i.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) XEmacs/21.4 (Security Through Obscurity, linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Thorfinn writes: > Now, that is, perhaps, a fair point, that it's easier to get people to > accept just taking the X- off. I still think that getting them to take > the X- off and putting mailto: on the front is not a particularly > difficult task. I can speak for INN's implementation in saying that removing the X- and removing the X- plus adding mailto: are both equivalently difficult (and are both trivial). Implementing Injector-Info is harder, although not that hard. (Parsing Injector-Info is completely insane, but well, we knew that going in.) -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) 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 iAA00PQG062488 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2004 16:00:25 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iAA00PDJ062487 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 9 Nov 2004 16:00:25 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from tertius.net.au (onsitelegal.com.au [203.30.75.61]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAA00NiA062470 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2004 16:00:24 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from thorfinn@tertius.net.au) Received: by tertius.net.au (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 7830C2BEA8; Wed, 10 Nov 2004 11:00:28 +1100 (EST) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 11:00:28 +1100 From: Thorfinn To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Message-ID: <20041110000028.GA25763@dora.tertius.net.au> References: <4188CAD0.1080902@isode.com> <41895E2E.5C57@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87sm7qwnse.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <418A41B4.7498@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87u0s5oa3c.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <418B6F21.5A5D@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87oeicrzj4.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87r7n4rzln.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-Religion: debian-Linux FreeBSD slrn mutt vim X-Message-Flag: Outlook is dodgy software. Use anything else instead. Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Tue 09 Nov 2004 at 11:00:51AM +0000, in , Charles Lindsey wrote: > In <87r7n4rzln.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Russ Allbery writes: [snippage] > >I don't actually agree with this. I just think it's pointless to try to > >argue it with the people here. > With a mail abuse address, you can to a large extent automate the process > of sending a LART (e.g. by generating a mail message with the right To: > address and with the full headers already pasted into it; so you just have > to add some text explaining that this is a spam, or whatever). > But every web site interface is different. Each LART has to be constructed > by hand by a human, including cutting and pasting a set of full headers > into whatever box (usually too small) the web site deigns to provide. Huh? If it's a URL, you (the ISP) just embed a message identifier of some kind into the URL. Complaining about it is as simple as clicking on the URL, and voila, done, complaint registered, no user interaction required. > Hence the suspicion, frequently voiced, that the ISPs concerned are really > trying to discourage you from complaining at all by providing unnecessary > hoops using a medium that may not be available to you. Less hoops. Medium not available, maybe... But I think that's a sufficiently rare occurrence these days (and getting rarer all the time) as to be not worth legislating for. > >This is putting policy that might change into the standard. I think this > >is a hideously bad idea for all of the reasons that I've previously stated > >and that have been discussed on the mailing list for the last three or > >four years, the same reasons that have resulted in splitting the policy > >document off to USEAGE. > Hideously bad it may be, but I don't think you are going to find > consensus on this list for anything else. Well, I'm speaking up as being against consensus in that direction (restricting solely to email address). > If the climate changes in the future (which I doubt), then an > extension might be possible. That is actually one advantage of putting > it in Injection-Info, because you could introduce a new parameter > permitting URLs as a later extension. > OTOH, providing a Complaints-To header would simply be seen as adopting the > current usage of the X-Complaints-To header and, given its widespread > usage and almost universally agreed syntax, could hardly be objected to. Now, that is, perhaps, a fair point, that it's easier to get people to accept just taking the X- off. I still think that getting them to take the X- off and putting mailto: on the front is not a particularly difficult task. And reader agents are free to just ignore anything that isn't a mailto:... I don't think we're putting any requirement on them to necessarily do anything *with* a Complaints-To: header, are we? Later, Thorf -- thorfinn@tertius.net.au ~/ For those who've come across the seas, ~/ We've boundless plains to share, ~/ ~/ With courage let us all combine, ~/ To Advance Australia Fair. ~/ -- The end of the second verse of the Australian National Anthem. -- 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 iA9HL8wO018206 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2004 09:21:08 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA9HL8Bx018205 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 9 Nov 2004 09:21:08 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.61]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iA9HL7OM018165 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2004 09:21:07 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from blilly@erols.com) X-Info: This message was accepted for relay by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net as the sender used SMTP authentication X-Trace: iV84USLOzcdw5kQppcsJF7Ny9v+nDk/lzT4KV5FgaLA= Received: from 65.105.220.34.ptr.us.xo.net ([65.105.220.34] helo=mail.blilly.com) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #7) id 1CRZfz-0000Qd-00; Tue, 09 Nov 2004 12:21:03 -0500 Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.blilly.com with ESMTP id iA9HKTVw006218(8.12.10/8.12.10/mail.blilly.com sendmail.mc.mail 1.18 2004/05/15 07:23:45) ; Tue, 9 Nov 2004 12:20:40 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by marty.blilly.com with ESMTP id iA9HKG1W006217(8.12.10/8.12.10/blilly.com submit.mc 1.1 2003/08/26 22:21:33) ; Tue, 9 Nov 2004 12:20:23 -0500 From: Bruce Lilly Reply-To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Organization: Bruce Lilly To: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 09:17:59 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 Cc: ietf-usefor@imc.org References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <200411071632.03978.blilly@erols.com> <418EA0B3.17EE@xyzzy.claranet.de> In-Reply-To: <418EA0B3.17EE@xyzzy.claranet.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200411090918.00283.blilly@erols.com> Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Sun November 7 2004 17:24, Frank Ellermann wrote: > Okay, I try it, old: > > | URL-parameter := <"> URL-word *(*LWSP-char URL-word) <"> > | URL-word := token > > New: > > | URL-parameter := DQUOTE URL-word *( [FWS] URL-word) DQUOTE > | URL-word := 1*( %d33 / %d35-126 ) > | ; the concatention of the URL-words yields > | ; an URI as defined by [2396bis] > > We don't need \" here when we have %22, or do we ? Bye, Frank One problem is that there are many characters in %d33,%d35-%d126 which were "unsafe" in RFC 1738, "excluded" in RFC 2396, but in RFC 2396bis there is no list of those characters that may not be part or a URI (under any name). Two examples are '<' (%d60) and '>' (%d62), which are prominently used in RFC [2]822 address fields and which therefore are likely to be part of content placed into a mailto URI; moreover, under some mechanisms (e.g. RFC 2369 List- fields) those characters are used to delimit URIs. If we're going to handle general URIs (as we should), we need to be wary of any interaction between particular URI schemes and the ever- changing URI syntax. For example, the mailto URI scheme specification (RFC 2368) requires that "all URL reserved characters in 'to' must be encoded"; whereas '@' was not "reserved" in a URI path component (which is where the RFC 2368 production "to" appears) under RFCs 1738 and 2396, it is unconditionally "reserved" in RFC 2396bis. That implies that '@' (%d64) must be excluded from your "URL-word" grammar if we are considering mailto URIs in isolation; other URI schemes may interact differently with the generic URI syntax changes. Because those changes are still in a state of flux (no RFC obsoleting 2396 has yet been issued), as that proposed changed syntax is not clearly specified (no list of "unsafe" or "excluded" characters), and until there has been some investigation of the effects of the proposed changes on all URI schemes (and preferably after there has been an adequate amount of practical experience with implementations based on the changed syntax), IMO it would be premature to attempt to formulate specific syntax. The simplest and safest course of action for the USEFOR WG would be to wait until the responsible parties for the affected specifications have come to agreement on revised syntax, then adopt that agreed-upon syntax. There is no urgent need to take action at this time; there is no existing standardized "complaints-to" field that needs to be addressed, and premature action is likely to result in incompatibilities which would have to be repaired; past experience has shown that once a specification (or interpretation of an imprecise specification) is ensconced in news software code, it can take a very long time to recover. 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 iA9BOhw1058651 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2004 03:24:43 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA9BOhM7058650 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 9 Nov 2004 03:24:43 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp802.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp802.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.139]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id iA9BOffC058580 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2004 03:24:42 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-75-220.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.75.220 with poptime) by smtp802.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 9 Nov 2004 11:24:22 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id iA9BO7F28537 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Tue, 9 Nov 2004 11:24:07 GMT To: LIST: ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20279 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <417414F5.6020500@isode.com> <87sm7t6n4e.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <41877F8C.7000402@isode.com> <4187E75F.1099@xyzzy.claranet.de> <4188C9F0.6020905@isode.com> <4188CAD0.1080902@isode.com> <41895E2E.5C57@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87sm7qwnse.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <418A41B4.7498@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87u0s5oa3c.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <418B6F21.5A5D@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87oeicrzj4.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87r7n4rzln.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 11:00:51 GMT Lines: 53 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <87r7n4rzln.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Russ Allbery writes: >Charles Lindsey writes: >> If we are agreed that it is a Bad Thing for ISPs to be requiring users >> to use web forms for abuse complaints (and I think we are, and the >> consensus on the news.net-abuse.* groups supports us), >I don't actually agree with this. I just think it's pointless to try to >argue it with the people here. With a mail abuse address, you can to a large extent automate the process of sending a LART (e.g. by generating a mail message with the right To: address and with the full headers already pasted into it; so you just have to add some text explaining that this is a spam, or whatever). But every web site interface is different. Each LART has to be constructed by hand by a human, including cutting and pasting a set of full headers into whatever box (usually too small) the web site deigns to provide. Hence the suspicion, frequently voiced, that the ISPs concerned are really trying to discourage you from complaining at all by providing unnecessary hoops using a medium that may not be available to you. >> then the first thing you do is to ensure that the syntax provided in >> your complaints-header does not afford them that opportunity. >This is putting policy that might change into the standard. I think this >is a hideously bad idea for all of the reasons that I've previously stated >and that have been discussed on the mailing list for the last three or >four years, the same reasons that have resulted in splitting the policy >document off to USEAGE. Hideously bad it may be, but I don't think you are going to find consensus on this list for anything else. If the climate changes in the future (which I doubt), then an extension might be possible. That is actually one advantage of putting it in Injection-Info, because you could introduce a new parameter permitting URLs as a later extension. OTOH, providing a Complaints-To header would simply be seen as adopting the current usage of the X-Complaints-To header and, given its widespread usage and almost universally agreed syntax, could hardly be objected to. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 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 iA98rXYX053844 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2004 00:53:33 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA98rXBU053843 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 9 Nov 2004 00:53:33 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from tertius.net.au (onsitelegal.com.au [203.30.75.61]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iA98rWHK053728 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2004 00:53:32 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from thorfinn@tertius.net.au) Received: by tertius.net.au (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 1133D2BF54; Tue, 9 Nov 2004 19:53:21 +1100 (EST) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 19:53:20 +1100 From: Thorfinn To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Message-ID: <20041109085320.GA17207@dora.tertius.net.au> References: <4188C9F0.6020905@isode.com> <4188CAD0.1080902@isode.com> <41895E2E.5C57@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87sm7qwnse.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <418A41B4.7498@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87u0s5oa3c.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <418B6F21.5A5D@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87oeicrzj4.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87r7n4rzln.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87r7n4rzln.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-Religion: debian-Linux FreeBSD slrn mutt vim X-Message-Flag: Outlook is dodgy software. Use anything else instead. Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Mon 08 Nov 2004 at 09:59:32AM -0800, in <87r7n4rzln.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>, Russ Allbery wrote: > Charles Lindsey writes: > > If we are agreed that it is a Bad Thing for ISPs to be requiring users > > to use web forms for abuse complaints (and I think we are, and the > > consensus on the news.net-abuse.* groups supports us), > I don't actually agree with this. I just think it's pointless to try to > argue it with the people here. FWIW, I don't agree with it either. I see a good reason for us to strongly recommend a mailto: in preference to any other sort of URL, but I don't think there's a strong reason to prevent ISPs from putting in a http: url if they want to. Later, Thorf -- thorfinn@tertius.net.au ~/ For those who've come across the seas, ~/ We've boundless plains to share, ~/ ~/ With courage let us all combine, ~/ To Advance Australia Fair. ~/ -- The end of the second verse of the Australian National Anthem. -- 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 iA8Ne6Zb068759 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 2004 15:40:06 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA8Ne6pV068758 for ietf-usefor-skb; Mon, 8 Nov 2004 15:40:06 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iA8Ne27P068644 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 2004 15:40:03 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CRJ79-0002kH-00 for ; Tue, 09 Nov 2004 00:39:59 +0100 Received: from 212.82.251.165 ([212.82.251.165]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 09 Nov 2004 00:39:59 +0100 Received: from nobody by 212.82.251.165 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 09 Nov 2004 00:39:59 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Path Punctuation summary Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 00:36:28 +0100 Organization: Lines: 43 Message-ID: <419002FC.A44@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <418B7C4F.86C@xyzzy.claranet.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.82.251.165 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by above.proper.com id iA8Ne37P068734 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Charles Lindsey wrote: > Path: good-site.com!!mallet.com!MISMATCH!dodgy.com!old-site.com! > new-site.com!!injector.com!POSTED!not-for-mail That's better than M. > propose alternative keywords/notations for MISMATCH and POSTED. INVALID and LOCALHOST would be reserved, but LOCALHOST was a horrible idea, please forget it. If we could get rid of the POSTED, then replacing MISMATCH by INVALID makes sense. But Henry's idea was better. Your !! is also nice, you could use it instead of Henry's space: | Path: good-site.com,mallet.com dodgy.com!old-site.com! | new-site.com,injector.com@not-for-mail | | Observe that the ' ' delimiter turns up rather conveniently as a separator | between the correct and bogus identities of mallet.com. One would need to | discuss whether FWS as well as SP should delimit this case. Path: good-site.com,mallet.com!!dodgy.com!old-site.com! new-site.com,injector.com@not-for-mail >> tv = 65.201.175.144 > Eh? Does that domain actually exist? Seems broken to me. TV is Tuvalu, a ccTLD, see TV is also host. A TLD POSTED or MISMATCH is unlikely, but not "verboten" like INVALID. With UUCP host names INVALID is probably not much better than MISMATCH. Bye, Frank 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 iA8HxVpY044260 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 2004 09:59:31 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA8HxV5M044259 for ietf-usefor-skb; Mon, 8 Nov 2004 09:59:31 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp3.Stanford.EDU (smtp3.Stanford.EDU [171.67.16.138]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iA8HxU6O044244 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 2004 09:59:30 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp3.Stanford.EDU (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id iA8HxWqr010649 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 2004 09:59:33 -0800 Received: (qmail 7829 invoked by uid 1000); 8 Nov 2004 17:59:32 -0000 To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? In-Reply-To: (Charles Lindsey's message of "Mon, 8 Nov 2004 14:10:15 GMT") References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <417414F5.6020500@isode.com> <87sm7t6n4e.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <41877F8C.7000402@isode.com> <4187E75F.1099@xyzzy.claranet.de> <4188C9F0.6020905@isode.com> <4188CAD0.1080902@isode.com> <41895E2E.5C57@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87sm7qwnse.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <418A41B4.7498@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87u0s5oa3c.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <418B6F21.5A5D@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87oeicrzj4.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> From: Russ Allbery Organization: The Eyrie Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2004 09:59:32 -0800 Message-ID: <87r7n4rzln.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) XEmacs/21.4 (Security Through Obscurity, linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Charles Lindsey writes: > If we are agreed that it is a Bad Thing for ISPs to be requiring users > to use web forms for abuse complaints (and I think we are, and the > consensus on the news.net-abuse.* groups supports us), I don't actually agree with this. I just think it's pointless to try to argue it with the people here. > then the first thing you do is to ensure that the syntax provided in > your complaints-header does not afford them that opportunity. This is putting policy that might change into the standard. I think this is a hideously bad idea for all of the reasons that I've previously stated and that have been discussed on the mailing list for the last three or four years, the same reasons that have resulted in splitting the policy document off to USEAGE. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) 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 iA8HCiIi024300 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 2004 09:12:44 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA8HCiUL024299 for ietf-usefor-skb; Mon, 8 Nov 2004 09:12:44 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp808.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp808.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.198]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id iA8HChV3024229 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 2004 09:12:43 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-71-252.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.71.252 with poptime) by smtp808.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Nov 2004 17:12:30 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id iA8HCF820966 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Mon, 8 Nov 2004 17:12:15 GMT To: LIST: ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20277 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <417414F5.6020500@isode.com> <87sm7t6n4e.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <41877F8C.7000402@isode.com> <4187E75F.1099@xyzzy.claranet.de> <4188C9F0.6020905@isode.com> <4188CAD0.1080902@isode.com> <41895E2E.5C57@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87sm7qwnse.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <418A41B4.7498@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87u0s5oa3c.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <418B6F21.5A5D@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87oeicrzj4.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 14:10:15 GMT Lines: 41 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <87oeicrzj4.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Russ Allbery writes: >Why do you think that? I don't understand why anyone thinks that banning >URLs is going to convince ISPs to provide plain mailbox addresses as abuse >reporting venues when they wanted to use a web form. If I were an ISP >convinced I wanted to use a web form, requiring an address would just mean >that I didn't provide that parameter and instead added some other header >with the URL. If we are agreed that it is a Bad Thing for ISPs to be requiring users to use web forms for abuse complaints (and I think we are, and the consensus on the news.net-abuse.* groups supports us), then the first thing you do is to ensure that the syntax provided in your complaints-header does not afford them that opportunity. That means they are forced to use undocumented X-headers for the purpose, which leaves them wide open to peer pressure, flames and LARTs to make them change their ways. As for the mailto URL scheme, its only benefit seems to be that the ISP can insert a Subject in it to help identify the source of the abuse (which leads to all sorts of strange subjects in strange languages and encodings such as Bruce has shown to us). Far better to encode such information in the local-part of the abuse address, as in Complaints-To: abuse-123456@example.net where "123456" is some logging information meaningful to the ISP inserting it, of even a msg-id (if you can mangle it so as to be a legal local-part). -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 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 iA8HCgYL024269 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 2004 09:12:42 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA8HCgWn024268 for ietf-usefor-skb; Mon, 8 Nov 2004 09:12:42 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp808.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp808.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.198]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id iA8HCfM4024207 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 2004 09:12:41 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-71-252.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.71.252 with poptime) by smtp808.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Nov 2004 17:12:28 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id iA8HCEL20962 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Mon, 8 Nov 2004 17:12:14 GMT To: LIST: ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20276 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <417414F5.6020500@isode.com> <87sm7t6n4e.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <418B72FE.2420@xyzzy.claranet.de> Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 13:59:32 GMT Lines: 28 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <418B72FE.2420@xyzzy.claranet.de> Frank Ellermann writes: >A new Whatever: doesn't exist yet, and as soon as it exists >getting rid of a few malformed Whatever: should be easy. >But IMHO you can't "deprecate" old X-Whatever:, because I'm >free to invent and use X-Whatever: in any form I like. No >X-Whatever: can be "malformed", it's unstructured gibberish. No, you can't forbid it formally, but you can say "The new Whatever header SHOULD be used in place of the previously used, but nowhere documented, X-Whatever header" (which is actually what we currently say in respect of the new Injection-Info and the old NNTP-Posting-Host and X-Trace). That doesn't render the old forms non-compliant, but it provides good ammunition for directing flames and LARTs at sites that haven't changed their ways several years after the new standard was adopted. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 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 iA8HCg36024265 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 2004 09:12:42 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA8HCgBg024259 for ietf-usefor-skb; Mon, 8 Nov 2004 09:12:42 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp808.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp808.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.198]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id iA8HCfOJ024208 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 2004 09:12:41 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-71-252.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.71.252 with poptime) by smtp808.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Nov 2004 17:12:29 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id iA8HCEY20958 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Mon, 8 Nov 2004 17:12:14 GMT To: LIST: ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20275 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: Path Punctuation summary Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <418B7C4F.86C@xyzzy.claranet.de> Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 13:52:26 GMT Lines: 46 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <418B7C4F.86C@xyzzy.claranet.de> Frank Ellermann writes: >Charles Lindsey wrote: >> I think I would prefer Henry's scheme out of that bunch >Yes, it's nice. For a scheme based on s-o-1036 (only "!") >like POSTED and MISMATCH I'd prefer other "keywords": >POSTED => LOCALHOST >MISMATCH => INVALID >But TEST for M would result in messy Path: headers, that >idea probably can't fly. OK, I think you're talking about my Scheme D now. Another possibility I have thought of is that you could use an empty path-identity (i.e. two '!'s together) for the 'M' case, gving: Path: good-site.com!!mallet.com!MISMATCH!dodgy.com!old-site.com! new-site.com!!injector.com!POSTED!not-for-mail So the double "!!" shows that good-site.com and newsite.com assert that they have confirmed the identity of their upstream sites, and the single '!' shows that old-site.com had merely copied the existing path-identity without checking it. By all means propose alternative keywords/notations for MISMATCH and POSTED. I don't like M, MISMATCH, and >POSTED because it's very near to odd cases like host TV. >tv = 65.201.175.144 Eh? Does that domain actually exist? Seems broken to me. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 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 iA7MQCkQ077760 for ; Sun, 7 Nov 2004 14:26:12 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA7MQC4L077759 for ietf-usefor-skb; Sun, 7 Nov 2004 14:26:12 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iA7MQA94077735 for ; Sun, 7 Nov 2004 14:26:11 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CQvUF-00084l-00 for ; Sun, 07 Nov 2004 23:26:15 +0100 Received: from 213.191.80.104 ([213.191.80.104]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 07 Nov 2004 23:26:15 +0100 Received: from nobody by 213.191.80.104 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 07 Nov 2004 23:26:15 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2004 23:24:51 +0100 Organization: Lines: 24 Message-ID: <418EA0B3.17EE@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <200411062345.11066.blilly@erols.com> <418E899D.6B09@xyzzy.claranet.de> <200411071632.03978.blilly@erols.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.191.80.104 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Bruce Lilly wrote: > it might be possible to incorporate the same principles used > in RFC 2017, Good enough, or at least better than the 2231 idea of folding. > because the underlying URL syntax used by 2017 is > obsolete and the current syntax is quite different. Okay, I try it, old: | URL-parameter := <"> URL-word *(*LWSP-char URL-word) <"> | URL-word := token New: | URL-parameter := DQUOTE URL-word *( [FWS] URL-word) DQUOTE | URL-word := 1*( %d33 / %d35-126 ) | ; the concatention of the URL-words yields | ; an URI as defined by [2396bis] We don't need \" here when we have %22, or do we ? Bye, Frank 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 iA7LWFve056096 for ; Sun, 7 Nov 2004 13:32:15 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA7LWFcA056095 for ietf-usefor-skb; Sun, 7 Nov 2004 13:32:15 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp04.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp04.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.63]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iA7LWEOu056089 for ; Sun, 7 Nov 2004 13:32:14 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from blilly@erols.com) X-Info: This message was accepted for relay by smtp04.mrf.mail.rcn.net as the sender used SMTP authentication X-Trace: bOTYuWRqPbr6DMQEHXGUjd2s8zQ8qdsYd7yDhMU7jpo= Received: from [12.40.111.107] (port=32792 helo=mail.blilly.com) by smtp04.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.42 #5) id 1CQue2-0003CY-8K; Sun, 07 Nov 2004 16:32:19 -0500 Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.blilly.com with ESMTP id iA7LWDxA005197(8.12.10/8.12.10/mail.blilly.com sendmail.mc.mail 1.18 2004/05/15 07:23:45) ; Sun, 7 Nov 2004 16:32:13 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by marty.blilly.com with ESMTP id iA7LW7DO005194(8.12.10/8.12.10/blilly.com submit.mc 1.1 2003/08/26 22:21:33) ; Sun, 7 Nov 2004 16:32:11 -0500 From: Bruce Lilly Reply-To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Organization: Bruce Lilly To: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2004 16:32:02 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 Cc: ietf-usefor@imc.org References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <200411062345.11066.blilly@erols.com> <418E899D.6B09@xyzzy.claranet.de> In-Reply-To: <418E899D.6B09@xyzzy.claranet.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200411071632.03978.blilly@erols.com> Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Sun November 7 2004 15:46, Frank Ellermann wrote: > > Bruce Lilly wrote: > > > URIs can easily be longer than 998 octets. > > Yes, but they don't contain unencoded white space, therefore > the folding rules in RfC 2017 3.1 are good enough. IIRC it > was you who posted pointers to all relevant RfCs incl. 2017. RFC 2017 [3.1] applies only to a specific parameter in the Content-Type field when used with a specific media type. It's also based on RFC 1738, the relevant parts of which have been superseded by RFC 2396 (which uses different syntax), which may itself be replaced by yet another different syntax specification. Now it might be possible to incorporate the same principles used in RFC 2017, but it won't be as simple as referring to 2017 (because it's not applicable) or copying some text from 2017 (because the underlying URL syntax used by 2017 is obsolete and the current syntax is quite different). 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 iA7KotRI041147 for ; Sun, 7 Nov 2004 12:50:55 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA7KotHY041146 for ietf-usefor-skb; Sun, 7 Nov 2004 12:50:55 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iA7Kor3S041031 for ; Sun, 7 Nov 2004 12:50:54 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CQtzs-0003G0-00 for ; Sun, 07 Nov 2004 21:50:48 +0100 Received: from 213.191.80.104 ([213.191.80.104]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 07 Nov 2004 21:50:48 +0100 Received: from nobody by 213.191.80.104 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 07 Nov 2004 21:50:48 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2004 21:46:21 +0100 Organization: Lines: 33 Message-ID: <418E899D.6B09@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <418CF1E0.49F1@xyzzy.claranet.de> <200411062345.11066.blilly@erols.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.191.80.104 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Bruce Lilly wrote: > URIs can easily be longer than 998 octets. Yes, but they don't contain unencoded white space, therefore the folding rules in RfC 2017 3.1 are good enough. IIRC it was you who posted pointers to all relevant RfCs incl. 2017. > To: abuse@example.org > Subject: =?iso-8859-1*de?q?Beschwerde_=FCber?= <123@example.org> > then a corresponding mailto URI is: > mailto:abuse@example.org?Subject=%20%3D%3Fiso-8859-1*de%3Fq%3FBeschwerde_%3DFCber%3F%3D%20%3C123%40example.org%3E Thanks, so you added the language to the MIME encoded Subject, not to the MIME parameter. And it even works with my good old Mozilla 3 (of course it has no idea what *de should be :-). > Depending on which version of the mailto URI specification > and which version of URI syntax you're using, the '@' might > be URI encoded as "%40". I can see this fascinating thread on the URI list. It gets weird if you try to redirect percent encodigs through PURL: http://purl.net/xyzzy/-AWFID/imperial%2520ton/35%2520in%2520oz > RFC 2119 "MUST NOT" is out of the question. That wasn't meant literally. The real question is mailbox address vs. URL in the possible abuse-reports= parameter of Injection-Info. Let's just offer both and be done with it. Bye, Frank 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 iA7J12Ee094899 for ; Sun, 7 Nov 2004 11:01:02 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA7J12nJ094898 for ietf-usefor-skb; Sun, 7 Nov 2004 11:01:02 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp04.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp04.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.63]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iA7J0x6F094879 for ; Sun, 7 Nov 2004 11:00:59 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from blilly@erols.com) X-Info: This message was accepted for relay by smtp04.mrf.mail.rcn.net as the sender used SMTP authentication X-Trace: NFEPE98KMCpiG7KOxSvaL336ueqC943FKejNRTtDtE4= Received: from [12.40.111.107] (port=32918 helo=mail.blilly.com) by smtp04.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.42 #5) id 1CQsHe-0006iD-6O; Sun, 07 Nov 2004 14:01:02 -0500 Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.blilly.com with ESMTP id iA7J0odg006198(8.12.10/8.12.10/mail.blilly.com sendmail.mc.mail 1.18 2004/05/15 07:23:45) ; Sun, 7 Nov 2004 14:00:50 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by marty.blilly.com with ESMTP id iA7J0mOv006197(8.12.10/8.12.10/blilly.com submit.mc 1.1 2003/08/26 22:21:33) ; Sun, 7 Nov 2004 14:00:50 -0500 From: Bruce Lilly Reply-To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Organization: Bruce Lilly To: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 23:45:10 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 Cc: ietf-usefor@imc.org References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <418CF1E0.49F1@xyzzy.claranet.de> In-Reply-To: <418CF1E0.49F1@xyzzy.claranet.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200411062345.11066.blilly@erols.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by above.proper.com id iA7J0x6F094880 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Sat November 6 2004 10:46, Frank Ellermann wrote: > > Charles Lindsey wrote: > > > there is no real reason ever to use the RFC 2231 parameter > > splitting in News > > That's also true without the "in News" (at least for URLs). No, URIs can easily be longer than 998 octets. Of course, there's no reason to use such parameters anywhere other than the two specific MIME fields (Content-Type and Content-Disposition) for which they're designed. > Yes, and we'd need Martin Dürst to force some encoded words > into the URL (or for an IRI). The German translation of > "complaint about" would be "Beschwerde über", but I have no > idea how to put "ü" in a mailto-URL within a MIME parameter. If you want to produce a prototype message: To: abuse@example.org Subject: =?iso-8859-1*de?q?Beschwerde_=FCber?= <123@example.org> then a corresponding mailto URI is: mailto:abuse@example.org?Subject=%20%3D%3Fiso-8859-1*de%3Fq%3FBeschwerde_%3DFCber%3F%3D%20%3C123%40example.org%3E Depending on which version of the mailto URI specification and which version of URI syntax you're using, the '@' might be URI encoded as "%40". The above URI in an RFC 2231 parameter with attribute name uri could appear as: ; uri*0="mailto:abuse@example.org?Subject=%20%3D%3Fiso-8859-1*de%3Fq%3FBeschwerde_%3D" ; uri*1=FCber%3F%3D%20%3C123%40example.org%3E Note that it is not necessary to specify a charset or language for the uri parameter since a URI is always in a subset of ANSI X3.4 and is a protocol string not text. If nevertheless one specified an explicit charset, each '%' in at least the first parameter fragment would have to be RFC 2231 encoded (as would ':', '@', '?', and '='): ; uri*0*="ISO-ir-6''mailto%3Aabuse%40example.org%3FSubject%3D%2520%253D%253Fiso-8859" ; uri*1=-1*de%3Fq%3FBeschwerde_%3DFCber%3F%3D%20%3C123%40example.org%3E RFC 2047 encoded-words (as amended by RFC 2231 and errata) are clearly defined, mailto URI and generic URI syntax have some warts but one can construct a safe mailto URI, and constructing RFC 2231 parameters is also possible if one has tools to do so. However, each successive step adds another layer of encoding; RFC 2047 '=' and '?' interact with URI syntax and have to be encoded, and URI '%', ':', '?', and '=' interact with RFC 2231 parameter encoding and have to be encoded. By the time one finishes with all of that, it's barely recognizable. And there's a more serious problem; how is an end user going to make use of this mess? I know of no facilities in UAs for extracting and recombining arbitrary RFC 2231 parameters in arbitrary fields. Some UAs do have capability to follow URIs in message header fields, although it may require some contortions to get some of those UAs to do so. > > I don't want "ranting against". I would want MUST NOT. With no interoperability issues and no network damage issues, RFC 2119 "MUST NOT" is out of the question. > I'd like to know how this is supposed to work, resulting in > MUST NOT if it doesn't work. Otherwise (= Bruce and Martin > can solve the "ü" puzzle, and their solution is identical) > I could live with SHOULD NOT. 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 iA6JOE0O035687 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 2004 11:24:14 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA6JOEAc035686 for ietf-usefor-skb; Sat, 6 Nov 2004 11:24:14 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.60]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iA6JODMV035678 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 2004 11:24:14 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from blilly@erols.com) X-Info: This message was accepted for relay by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net as the sender used SMTP authentication X-Trace: jwa5bJOsymyU0Y1S81rtlpZO+q4IQ5+tBVsfGIYmXcM= Received: from wireless-12-40-110-93.bryantpark.org ([12.40.110.93] helo=mail.blilly.com) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #7) id 1CQWAb-0004fL-00; Sat, 06 Nov 2004 14:24:17 -0500 Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.blilly.com with ESMTP id iA6JO36F005250(8.12.10/8.12.10/mail.blilly.com sendmail.mc.mail 1.18 2004/05/15 07:23:45) ; Sat, 6 Nov 2004 14:24:11 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by marty.blilly.com with ESMTP id iA6JNvoo005249(8.12.10/8.12.10/blilly.com submit.mc 1.1 2003/08/26 22:21:33) ; Sat, 6 Nov 2004 14:24:10 -0500 From: Bruce Lilly Reply-To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Organization: Bruce Lilly To: Russ Allbery Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 05:15:28 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 Cc: ietf-usefor@imc.org References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <418B72FE.2420@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87k6t0rzi6.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> In-Reply-To: <87k6t0rzi6.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200411060515.28736.blilly@erols.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Fri November 5 2004 12:12, Russ Allbery wrote: > Headers beginning with X-* have no special meaning or significance as of > RFC 2822. There is a significant difference per (full Standard) RFC 822. RFC 2822 is merely a Proposed Standard; RFC 822 remains in effect and will continue to do so until such time as an RFC 2822 successor reaches full Standard status. There is also an explicit part of RFC 2047 concerning user-defined (X-) fields. RFC 2047 is a Draft Standard, one rung up the Standards Track from Proposed Standard and one rung below full Standard. 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 iA6FlqsH034829 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 2004 07:47:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA6FlqPM034828 for ietf-usefor-skb; Sat, 6 Nov 2004 07:47:52 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iA6FlmZR034713 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 2004 07:47:49 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CQSn0-0003Gj-00 for ; Sat, 06 Nov 2004 16:47:42 +0100 Received: from du-001-043.access.de.clara.net ([212.82.227.43]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 06 Nov 2004 16:47:42 +0100 Received: from nobody by du-001-043.access.de.clara.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 06 Nov 2004 16:47:42 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2004 16:46:40 +0100 Organization: Lines: 25 Message-ID: <418CF1E0.49F1@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <417414F5.6020500@isode.com> <87sm7t6n4e.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <41877F8C.7000402@isode.com> <4187E75F.1099@xyzzy.claranet.de> <4188C9F0.6020905@isode.com> <4188CAD0.1080902@isode.com> <41895E2E.5C57@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87sm7qwnse.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <418A41B4.7498@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87u0s5oa3c.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: du-001-043.access.de.clara.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by above.proper.com id iA6FlnZR034810 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Charles Lindsey wrote: > there is no real reason ever to use the RFC 2231 parameter > splitting in News That's also true without the "in News" (at least for URLs). > we do not allow transports to arbitrarily refold anythong > over 78 characters in length Yes, and we'd need Martin Dürst to force some encoded words into the URL (or for an IRI). The German translation of "complaint about" would be "Beschwerde über", but I have no idea how to put "ü" in a mailto-URL within a MIME parameter. > I don't want "ranting against". I would want MUST NOT. I'd like to know how this is supposed to work, resulting in MUST NOT if it doesn't work. Otherwise (= Bruce and Martin can solve the "ü" puzzle, and their solution is identical) I could live with SHOULD NOT. Bye, Frank 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 iA63ephr007116 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 19:40:51 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA63epGQ007115 for ietf-usefor-skb; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 19:40:51 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp1.Stanford.EDU (smtp1.Stanford.EDU [171.67.16.123]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iA63eoY5007099 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 19:40:50 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp1.Stanford.EDU (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id iA63etsG022234 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 19:40:56 -0800 Received: (qmail 26774 invoked by uid 1000); 6 Nov 2004 03:40:55 -0000 To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? In-Reply-To: (Charles Lindsey's message of "Fri, 5 Nov 2004 17:36:12 GMT") References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <417414F5.6020500@isode.com> <87sm7t6n4e.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <41877F8C.7000402@isode.com> <4187E75F.1099@xyzzy.claranet.de> <4188C9F0.6020905@isode.com> <4188CAD0.1080902@isode.com> <41895E2E.5C57@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87sm7qwnse.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <418A41B4.7498@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87u0s5oa3c.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> From: Russ Allbery Organization: The Eyrie Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2004 19:40:55 -0800 Message-ID: <878y9fprug.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) XEmacs/21.4 (Security Through Obscurity, linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Charles Lindsey writes: > Actually, there is no real reason ever to use the RFC 2231 parameter > splitting in News, because we do not allow transports to arbitrarily > refold anythong over 78 characters in length, and quite honestly I would > rather see We need to stay compatible with mail. >> How is this any worse than not providing a complaints-to address at all? > But nobody is suggesting that. The alternative suggestion is just an > email address (and preferably to my taste in a Complaints-To header). This may be the case in the ideal world that you're imagining, but in practice that won't be how it works. You are not going to convince a site that does not want to provide an e-mail abuse reporting address to provide one by not allowing them to provide a URL. > I don't want "ranting against". I would want MUST NOT. Then we have an irreconcilable difference. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) 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 iA63Cld1096158 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 19:12:47 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA63ClPm096157 for ietf-usefor-skb; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 19:12:47 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp812.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp812.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.202]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id iA63CkF3096124 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 19:12:46 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-69-54.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.69.54 with poptime) by smtp812.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 6 Nov 2004 03:12:31 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id iA63CBH01131 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Sat, 6 Nov 2004 03:12:11 GMT To: LIST: ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20263 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <417414F5.6020500@isode.com> <87sm7t6n4e.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <41877F8C.7000402@isode.com> <4187E75F.1099@xyzzy.claranet.de> <4188C9F0.6020905@isode.com> <4188CAD0.1080902@isode.com> <41895E2E.5C57@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87sm7qwnse.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <418A41B4.7498@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87u0s5oa3c.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 17:36:12 GMT Lines: 59 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <87u0s5oa3c.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Russ Allbery writes: >Frank Ellermann writes: >> That's why you want a URL, because we'll regret it as soon as >> it's available. >> Injection-Info: >> stuff; more=stuff; abuse-reports*1="mailto:" >> abuse-reports*2="news%40funny.example" >> abuse-reports*3="?subject=complaint%20about%20" >> abuse-reports*4="Message-ID%20%3Crandom+timestamp%40" >> abuse-reports*5="spammer.domain.example%3E&Cc=" >> abuse-reports*6="abuse%40news.funny.example" >> Flexible indeed. Ah! An ideal format for those providers who don't actually want anybody to send them any abuse reports :-) . And who will not recognize Subject: complaint%20about%20Message-ID%20%3Crandom+timestamp%40spammer.domain.example%3E&Cc=abuse%40news.funny.example if some naive user just cuts and pastes it from the URL like that. Actually, there is no real reason ever to use the RFC 2231 parameter splitting in News, because we do not allow transports to arbitrarily refold anythong over 78 characters in length, and quite honestly I would rather see Injection-Info: stuff; more=stuff; abuse-reports="mailto:news@funny.example?subject=complaint%20about%20Message-ID%20%3Crandom+timestamp%40spammer.domain.example%3E&Cc=abuse%40news.funny.example" on one long line and view it with whatever wrapping/scroolbar/etc my browser provided me with. >How is this any worse than not providing a complaints-to address at all? But nobody is suggesting that. The alternative suggestion is just an email address (and preferably to my taste in a Complaints-To header). >However, if people would prefer to have both an email and a url parameter, >that would also be fine with me. And I have no problem with lots of >ranting against using anything other than a simple mailto URL in the >USEAGE document. I don't want "ranting against". I would want MUST NOT. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 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 iA5KlA4A037338 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 12:47:10 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA5KlAZa037337 for ietf-usefor-skb; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 12:47:10 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp2.Stanford.EDU (smtp2.Stanford.EDU [171.67.16.125]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iA5Kl9Qi037322 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 12:47:09 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp2.Stanford.EDU (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id iA5KlB9L027142 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 12:47:12 -0800 Received: (qmail 12339 invoked by uid 1000); 5 Nov 2004 20:47:11 -0000 To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? In-Reply-To: <418BDCCF.4860@xyzzy.claranet.de> (Frank Ellermann's message of "Fri, 05 Nov 2004 21:04:31 +0100") References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <417414F5.6020500@isode.com> <87sm7t6n4e.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <41877F8C.7000402@isode.com> <4187E75F.1099@xyzzy.claranet.de> <4188C9F0.6020905@isode.com> <4188CAD0.1080902@isode.com> <41895E2E.5C57@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87sm7qwnse.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <418A41B4.7498@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87u0s5oa3c.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <418B6F21.5A5D@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87oeicrzj4.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <418BDCCF.4860@xyzzy.claranet.de> From: Russ Allbery Organization: The Eyrie Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2004 12:47:11 -0800 Message-ID: <87hdo4yqeo.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) XEmacs/21.4 (Security Through Obscurity, linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Frank Ellermann writes: > Yes, it's related to spam filtering, the admins see reported > links, and if they confirm it the article is deleted, or the > pseudo-group gmane.spam.detected is added to the Newsgroups:, > I'm not sure. It's essentially what I'd expect from your URL > idea. And reporting spam is a form of abuse complaint. You and I seem to be talking about such completely different things that I'm not quite sure what more to say. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) 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 iA5K9F6M017866 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 12:09:15 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA5K9Fni017865 for ietf-usefor-skb; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 12:09:15 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iA5K9DIA017835 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 12:09:14 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CQAOb-0004z9-00 for ; Fri, 05 Nov 2004 21:09:17 +0100 Received: from c-134-88-38.hh.dial.de.ignite.net ([62.134.88.38]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 05 Nov 2004 21:09:17 +0100 Received: from nobody by c-134-88-38.hh.dial.de.ignite.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 05 Nov 2004 21:09:17 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2004 21:04:31 +0100 Organization: Lines: 32 Message-ID: <418BDCCF.4860@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <417414F5.6020500@isode.com> <87sm7t6n4e.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <41877F8C.7000402@isode.com> <4187E75F.1099@xyzzy.claranet.de> <4188C9F0.6020905@isode.com> <4188CAD0.1080902@isode.com> <41895E2E.5C57@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87sm7qwnse.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <418A41B4.7498@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87u0s5oa3c.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <418B6F21.5A5D@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87oeicrzj4.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: c-134-88-38.hh.dial.de.ignite.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Russ Allbery wrote: > If I were an ISP convinced I wanted to use a web form, > requiring an address would just mean that I didn't provide > that parameter and instead added some other header with the > URL. And I'd use mail to news@, usenet@, and abuse@ anyway. Maybe with a copy to nanas, depends on how upset I am. If you think that URLs are no problem no matter what the RfC says, then why officially sanction it ? Alexej's idea was to get rid of the dubious Complaints-To: instead of the common X-Complaints-To:, and the latter is a mailbox address (minus the one case of bad prosa found by Charles). > I understand the behavior that people want to modify here It's not a modification, at the moment there are no URLs in X-Complaints-To: [Gmane X-Report-Spam] > I believe that it is for collaborative spam filtering, not > for abuse complaints. Yes, it's related to spam filtering, the admins see reported links, and if they confirm it the article is deleted, or the pseudo-group gmane.spam.detected is added to the Newsgroups:, I'm not sure. It's essentially what I'd expect from your URL idea. And reporting spam is a form of abuse complaint. Bye, Frank 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 iA5HCWJQ043397 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 09:12:32 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA5HCWl5043396 for ietf-usefor-skb; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 09:12:32 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp1.Stanford.EDU (smtp1.Stanford.EDU [171.67.16.123]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iA5HCWgU043390 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 09:12:32 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp1.Stanford.EDU (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id iA5HCX58004833 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 09:12:34 -0800 Received: (qmail 6446 invoked by uid 1000); 5 Nov 2004 17:12:33 -0000 To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? In-Reply-To: <418B72FE.2420@xyzzy.claranet.de> (Frank Ellermann's message of "Fri, 05 Nov 2004 13:33:02 +0100") References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <417414F5.6020500@isode.com> <87sm7t6n4e.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <418B72FE.2420@xyzzy.claranet.de> From: Russ Allbery Organization: The Eyrie Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2004 09:12:33 -0800 Message-ID: <87k6t0rzi6.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) XEmacs/21.4 (Security Through Obscurity, linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Frank Ellermann writes: > But IMHO you can't "deprecate" old X-Whatever:, because I'm > free to invent and use X-Whatever: in any form I like. No > X-Whatever: can be "malformed", it's unstructured gibberish. Headers beginning with X-* have no special meaning or significance as of RFC 2822. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) 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 iA5HBxJd043246 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 09:11:59 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA5HBx66043245 for ietf-usefor-skb; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 09:11:59 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp1.Stanford.EDU (smtp1.Stanford.EDU [171.67.16.123]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iA5HBwPl043239 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 09:11:58 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp1.Stanford.EDU (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id iA5HBxg5004660 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 09:12:00 -0800 Received: (qmail 6431 invoked by uid 1000); 5 Nov 2004 17:11:59 -0000 To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? In-Reply-To: <418B6F21.5A5D@xyzzy.claranet.de> (Frank Ellermann's message of "Fri, 05 Nov 2004 13:16:33 +0100") References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <417414F5.6020500@isode.com> <87sm7t6n4e.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <41877F8C.7000402@isode.com> <4187E75F.1099@xyzzy.claranet.de> <4188C9F0.6020905@isode.com> <4188CAD0.1080902@isode.com> <41895E2E.5C57@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87sm7qwnse.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <418A41B4.7498@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87u0s5oa3c.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <418B6F21.5A5D@xyzzy.claranet.de> From: Russ Allbery Organization: The Eyrie Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2004 09:11:59 -0800 Message-ID: <87oeicrzj4.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) XEmacs/21.4 (Security Through Obscurity, linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Frank Ellermann writes: > Russ Allbery wrote: > [weird mailto: abuse URL as multiline 2231 parameter] >> How is this any worse than not providing a complaints-to >> address at all? > The alternative is a plain mailbox address, not "no abuse > address at all". Why do you think that? I don't understand why anyone thinks that banning URLs is going to convince ISPs to provide plain mailbox addresses as abuse reporting venues when they wanted to use a web form. If I were an ISP convinced I wanted to use a web form, requiring an address would just mean that I didn't provide that parameter and instead added some other header with the URL. I understand the behavior that people want to modify here, but the way in which people are trying to go about modifying behavior is, frankly, not going to work, and hurts our future flexibility. > That would cover GMaNe, your article has the following headers: > X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org > X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1099585603 14799 80.91.229.6 > (4 Nov 2004 16:26:43 GMT) > NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org > NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 16:26:43 +0000 (UTC) > X-Report-Spam: > http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.usenet.format:27779 The Gmane X-Report-Spam header is something completely different than what we're talking about, unless I'm seriously mistaken as to what it's for. I believe that it is for collaborative spam filtering, not for abuse complaints. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) 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 iA5DEHl1057716 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 05:14:17 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA5DEHnc057715 for ietf-usefor-skb; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 05:14:17 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iA5DEGrE057697 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 05:14:16 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CQ3uz-00014p-00 for ; Fri, 05 Nov 2004 14:14:17 +0100 Received: from c-134-88-38.hh.dial.de.ignite.net ([62.134.88.38]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 05 Nov 2004 14:14:17 +0100 Received: from nobody by c-134-88-38.hh.dial.de.ignite.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 05 Nov 2004 14:14:17 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Path Punctuation summary Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2004 14:12:47 +0100 Organization: Lines: 35 Message-ID: <418B7C4F.86C@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: c-134-88-38.hh.dial.de.ignite.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Charles Lindsey wrote: > I think I would prefer Henry's scheme out of that bunch Yes, it's nice. For a scheme based on s-o-1036 (only "!") like POSTED and MISMATCH I'd prefer other "keywords": POSTED => LOCALHOST MISMATCH => INVALID But TEST for M would result in messy Path: headers, that idea probably can't fly. I don't like M, MISMATCH, and POSTED because it's very near to odd cases like host TV. tv = 65.201.175.144 The poor TV has a serious problem with a bug (?) in 2821: | A domain (or domain name) consists of one or more | dot-separated components. True. | The domain name, as described in this document and in [22], | is the entire, fully-qualified name (often referred to as | an "FQDN"). True, [22] is 1035 resp. Std 13 | Domain = (sub-domain 1*("." sub-domain)) / address-literal But that's wrong, or isn't it ? There's no dot in FQDN tv. Bye, Frank 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 iA5CXuUf039825 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 04:33:56 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA5CXuq6039824 for ietf-usefor-skb; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 04:33:56 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iA5CXs5K039811 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 04:33:55 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CQ3Hv-0006Z7-00 for ; Fri, 05 Nov 2004 13:33:55 +0100 Received: from c-134-88-38.hh.dial.de.ignite.net ([62.134.88.38]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 05 Nov 2004 13:33:55 +0100 Received: from nobody by c-134-88-38.hh.dial.de.ignite.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 05 Nov 2004 13:33:55 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2004 13:33:02 +0100 Organization: Lines: 19 Message-ID: <418B72FE.2420@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <417414F5.6020500@isode.com> <87sm7t6n4e.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: c-134-88-38.hh.dial.de.ignite.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Charles Lindsey wrote: > Of course, if we bless it with standardization, then the > malformed ones should wither away over time (and with the > throwing of suitable LARTs). A new Whatever: doesn't exist yet, and as soon as it exists getting rid of a few malformed Whatever: should be easy. But IMHO you can't "deprecate" old X-Whatever:, because I'm free to invent and use X-Whatever: in any form I like. No X-Whatever: can be "malformed", it's unstructured gibberish. I've seen the same idea of "deprecating" X-Archived-At:, but AFAIK that's not how it's supposed to work. Please correct me if my idea of X- headers is wrong. Bye, Frank 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 iA5CINhl029064 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 04:18:23 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA5CINo9029062 for ietf-usefor-skb; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 04:18:23 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iA5CIJ8o028890 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 04:18:19 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CQ32h-0005bv-00 for ; Fri, 05 Nov 2004 13:18:11 +0100 Received: from c-134-88-38.hh.dial.de.ignite.net ([62.134.88.38]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 05 Nov 2004 13:18:11 +0100 Received: from nobody by c-134-88-38.hh.dial.de.ignite.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 05 Nov 2004 13:18:11 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2004 13:16:33 +0100 Organization: Lines: 40 Message-ID: <418B6F21.5A5D@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <417414F5.6020500@isode.com> <87sm7t6n4e.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <41877F8C.7000402@isode.com> <4187E75F.1099@xyzzy.claranet.de> <4188C9F0.6020905@isode.com> <4188CAD0.1080902@isode.com> <41895E2E.5C57@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87sm7qwnse.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <418A41B4.7498@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87u0s5oa3c.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: c-134-88-38.hh.dial.de.ignite.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Russ Allbery wrote: [weird mailto: abuse URL as multiline 2231 parameter] > How is this any worse than not providing a complaints-to > address at all? The alternative is a plain mailbox address, not "no abuse address at all". >> several pages of security considerations plus an appendix I >> "IRIs in the abuse-reports parameter of Injection-Info". > I believe that the security considerations of visiting URLs > are already dealt with in adequate depth by other RFCs that > we can simply refer to, Probably, 2396bis is already in the RfC-editor queue. But I'm lost with IRIs, all I know for sure about IRIs is "this doesn't work with my good old Mozilla 3 without UTF-8". > However, if people would prefer to have both an email and a > url parameter, that would also be fine with me. That would cover GMaNe, your article has the following headers: X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1099585603 14799 80.91.229.6 (4 Nov 2004 16:26:43 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 16:26:43 +0000 (UTC) X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.usenet.format:27779 Please don't click on the link, "unreporting" reported spam with GMaNe can be tricky. With both formats in Injection-Info GMaNe could replace four headers by a single header. And it would be easy to replace this stuff if it's reinjected somehow elsewhere. Bye, Frank 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 iA53Cb7b086674 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 2004 19:12:37 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA53CbU3086670 for ietf-usefor-skb; Thu, 4 Nov 2004 19:12:37 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp809.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp809.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.199]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id iA53CZtD086617 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 2004 19:12:36 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-71-164.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.71.164 with poptime) by smtp809.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 5 Nov 2004 03:12:20 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id iA53CAB22387 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 03:12:10 GMT To: LIST: ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20259 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Path Punctuation summary Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Message-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 21:35:49 GMT Lines: 117 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: I first posted this in the middle of August, when I was away from home (which maybe explains why it never made it to the list). So when I was home again, and it was clear that it had not made it, I posted it again on August 27th. I don't know whether it made it that time (did any of you see it?), but what is clear is that Landfield was in a bad state at that time because nothing had been archived since August 13th. At some later stage, in the middle of September, some of the missing articles miraculously appeared in the Archive, but not this one (and I think serveral other people's must be missing also because the archive is showing only two messages posted at all in the last 5 days of August). So here it is again, for the third time :-( . There was earlier discussion concerning which delimiters could be used on the Path header, having regard to the vagueness of the word "punctuation" as used in RFC 1036. Given that the checks we have put into the Path-header are generally agreed to be desirable for tracing the origin of scams of various sorts, and that the principle problem seems to be whether the characters proposed as delimiters for this purpose would cause problems with existing implementations, here is a summary of some of the options we could consider. First, the scheme as proposed requires that relaying agents should be able to make the following assertions when they add a new path-identity to the Path-header: #1 I am the injecting site. #2 I have checked the identity of the previous site, and I believe the path-identity inserted by that site to be correct. #3 I have checked the identity of the previous site, and I do not believe the path-identity claimed by that site; here is what I believe to be the true identity of that site. #4 I have made no checks on the identity of the previous site. In the following running example injector.com always uses #1 new-site.com always uses #2 or #3 good-site.com always uses #2 or #3 old-site always uses #4 dodgy.com was a bogus identity actually inserted by mallet.com A. Current draft: ----------------- Uses '%' for #1, '/' for #2, '?' for #3 amd '!' for #4 Path: good-site.com/mallet.com?dodgy.com!old-site.com! new-site.com/injector.com%not-for-mail B. Henry's proposal : ------------------------------------------------------------------ Uses '@' for #1, ',' for #2, ' ' for #3 amd '!' for #4, since it is clear from RFC 1036 that all of those are intended to be usable as delimiters. Path: good-site.com,mallet.com dodgy.com!old-site.com! new-site.com,injector.com@not-for-mail Observe that the ' ' delimiter turns up rather conveniently as a separator between the correct and bogus identities of mallet.com. One would need to discuss whether FWS as well as SP should delimit this case. C. The Diablo scheme -------------------- I still have not been able to find documentation on this, but from observed instances it appears to work as follows: Path: good-site.com!mallet.com.MISMATCH!dodgy.com!old-site.com! new-site.com!injector.com.POSTED!not-for-mail I see 2 problems with this one: 1: Any site which peers with injector.com (e.g. new-site.com) would normally scan the received Path for occurrences of "injector.com", and would send the article back to injector.com if it was not found (which, of course, it isn't here ecause it recorded itself as "injector.com.POSTED"). 2: It provides no distinction betwen cases #2 and #4, which rather defeats the object of the whole exercise. D. Another possible scheme -------------------------- If you want to avoid all delimiters other than '!', and to overcome the problems with the Diablo scheme, then here is one which relies on special keywords "M", "MISMATCH" and "POSTED" in places where the current syntax would expect a path-identity. Path: good-site.com!M!mallet.com!MISMATCH!dodgy.com!old-site.com! new-site.com!M!injector.com!POSTED!not-for-mail It makes the Path a little longer, but not unacceptably so, and assumes that those keywords will never represent real sites. Comments? I think I would prefer Henry's scheme out of that bunch, but there might also be the possibility of using some of the other delimiters known to be used in the BNews implementation, which Bruce considers might be safe. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 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 iA4HCZfM049498 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 2004 09:12:35 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA4HCZJs049497 for ietf-usefor-skb; Thu, 4 Nov 2004 09:12:35 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lon-mail-3.gradwell.net (lon-mail-3.gradwell.net [193.111.201.127]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iA4HCY88049482 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 2004 09:12:34 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from host81-144-72-189.midband.mdip.bt.net [81.144.72.189] by lon-mail-3.gradwell.net with esmtp (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.151) id 418a6304.13db4.2 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Thu, 4 Nov 2004 17:12:36 +0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id iA4HCNr17760 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Thu, 4 Nov 2004 17:12:23 GMT To: LIST: ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20254 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <417414F5.6020500@isode.com> <87sm7t6n4e.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <41877F8C.7000402@isode.com> <4187E75F.1099@xyzzy.claranet.de> <4188C9F0.6020905@isode.com> <4188CAD0.1080902@isode.com> <41895E2E.5C57@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87sm7qwnse.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 16:20:04 GMT Lines: 46 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <87sm7qwnse.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Russ Allbery writes: >Frank Ellermann writes: >> Okay, then it's clear, and Charles said the same. I like >> this proposal, it's less trouble to catch _one_ forged >> header with all the injection info (for injecting agents). >> The geeks will love it, as Charles said, and only geeks >> need the complaint address. And for spammers it's more >> difficult to forge the complete Injection-Info. Besides >> I like KISS instead of "yet another header". Bye, Frank >I'm not particularly a fan of Injection-Info, but I'm willing to keep it >around as a compromise and given that, I think it probably does make sense >to combine the two. >I still do think that the complaint parameter, however we represent it, >should be a URL rather than an e-mail address. This is one of those >principals like not imposing arbitrary limits on fields. A URL is more >general and more flexible than an e-mail address; I don't know if, ten >years down the road, we'll regret having only an e-mail address or will >want a URL, but I don't see any reason to risk it. The people who were arguing against URLs were really arguing against URLs that pointed to web sites (like the ntlworld one that I quoted). It needs to be made clear that Netnews and the Web are different media, and things must be so that a user who has News access but no Web access is not disadvantaged. Now if we were to restrict the URL to be only 'mailto', then I might buy it, but then you have the problem that if you give them an inch the more clueless providers out there will just take a mile and use 'http' URLs, legally or not. So my preference is to leave it as just the email address (and using a Complaints-To header just to emphasise the point). -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 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 iA4HCYFu049490 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 2004 09:12:34 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA4HCYKI049489 for ietf-usefor-skb; Thu, 4 Nov 2004 09:12:34 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lon-mail-3.gradwell.net (lon-mail-3.gradwell.net [193.111.201.127]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iA4HCXYI049473 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 2004 09:12:33 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from host81-144-72-189.midband.mdip.bt.net [81.144.72.189] by lon-mail-3.gradwell.net with esmtp (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.151) id 418a6303.13db4.1 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Thu, 4 Nov 2004 17:12:35 +0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id iA4HCNe17767 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Thu, 4 Nov 2004 17:12:24 GMT To: LIST: ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20255 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <417414F5.6020500@isode.com> <87sm7t6n4e.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 16:23:43 GMT Lines: 28 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In Richard Clayton writes: >In message , Charles Lindsey > writes >>202833:X-Complaints-To: http://www.ntlworld.com/netreport >there's all sorts of other stuff out there... eg > X-Complaints-To: Please report abuse to abuse@usenet4all.com >but the overwhelming majority are valid looking email addresses. If it >is useful I could give an account of what proportion were nicely formed For a header that is nowhere documented officially, that is not bad going. Of course, if we bless it with standardization, then the malformed ones should wither away over time (and with the throwing of suitable LARTs). -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 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 iA4HCXc2049480 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 2004 09:12:33 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA4HCXwh049479 for ietf-usefor-skb; Thu, 4 Nov 2004 09:12:33 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lon-mail-3.gradwell.net (lon-mail-3.gradwell.net [193.111.201.127]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iA4HCW2B049471 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 2004 09:12:33 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from host81-144-72-189.midband.mdip.bt.net [81.144.72.189] by lon-mail-3.gradwell.net with esmtp (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.151) id 418a6302.13db4.0 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Thu, 4 Nov 2004 17:12:34 +0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id iA4HCOe17772 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Thu, 4 Nov 2004 17:12:24 GMT To: LIST: ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20256 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Usefor Web Site Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 16:28:09 GMT Lines: 20 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: www.imc.org/ietf-usefor now contains all the documents and other links that were present on the Landfield site. It also contains the last two years of archives in html from the old mailing list, and the whole archive in mbox format. I shall transfer the rest of the html archives presently (but I need to write some scripts first), and then the Landfield site can finally be abandoned (I shall, of course, leave a pointer to the new site there). -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 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 iA4GP90M028438 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 2004 08:25:09 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA4GP9u4028436 for ietf-usefor-skb; Thu, 4 Nov 2004 08:25:09 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp3.Stanford.EDU (smtp3.Stanford.EDU [171.67.16.138]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iA4GP9Hd028429 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 2004 08:25:09 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp3.Stanford.EDU (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id iA4GPB7a006052 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 2004 08:25:11 -0800 Received: (qmail 32305 invoked by uid 1000); 4 Nov 2004 16:25:11 -0000 To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? In-Reply-To: <418A41B4.7498@xyzzy.claranet.de> (Frank Ellermann's message of "Thu, 04 Nov 2004 15:50:28 +0100") References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <417414F5.6020500@isode.com> <87sm7t6n4e.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <41877F8C.7000402@isode.com> <4187E75F.1099@xyzzy.claranet.de> <4188C9F0.6020905@isode.com> <4188CAD0.1080902@isode.com> <41895E2E.5C57@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87sm7qwnse.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <418A41B4.7498@xyzzy.claranet.de> From: Russ Allbery Organization: The Eyrie Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 08:25:11 -0800 Message-ID: <87u0s5oa3c.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) XEmacs/21.4 (Security Through Obscurity, linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Frank Ellermann writes: > That's why you want a URL, because we'll regret it as soon as > it's available. > Injection-Info: > stuff; more=stuff; abuse-reports*1="mailto:" > abuse-reports*2="news%40funny.example" > abuse-reports*3="?subject=complaint%20about%20" > abuse-reports*4="Message-ID%20%3Crandom+timestamp%40" > abuse-reports*5="spammer.domain.example%3E&Cc=" > abuse-reports*6="abuse%40news.funny.example" > Flexible indeed. How is this any worse than not providing a complaints-to address at all? Most of what makes that look like such a mess, of course, is the decision to use MIME-style parameters for Injection-Info, not anything about the content of the abuse-reports parameter. > And several pages of security considerations plus an appendix I "IRIs in > the abuse-reports parameter of Injection-Info". I believe that the security considerations of visiting URLs are already dealt with in adequate depth by other RFCs that we can simply refer to, although I've not checked personally. However, if people would prefer to have both an email and a url parameter, that would also be fine with me. And I have no problem with lots of ranting against using anything other than a simple mailto URL in the USEAGE document. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) 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 iA4EqIGW096080 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 2004 06:52:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA4EqIFL096079 for ietf-usefor-skb; Thu, 4 Nov 2004 06:52:18 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iA4EqFOW096069 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 2004 06:52:16 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CPiyH-0005iz-00 for ; Thu, 04 Nov 2004 15:52:17 +0100 Received: from c-134-93-89.hh.dial.de.ignite.net ([62.134.93.89]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 04 Nov 2004 15:52:17 +0100 Received: from nobody by c-134-93-89.hh.dial.de.ignite.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 04 Nov 2004 15:52:17 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 15:50:28 +0100 Organization: Lines: 34 Message-ID: <418A41B4.7498@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <417414F5.6020500@isode.com> <87sm7t6n4e.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <41877F8C.7000402@isode.com> <4187E75F.1099@xyzzy.claranet.de> <4188C9F0.6020905@isode.com> <4188CAD0.1080902@isode.com> <41895E2E.5C57@xyzzy.claranet.de> <87sm7qwnse.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: c-134-93-89.hh.dial.de.ignite.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Russ Allbery wrote: > I'm not particularly a fan of Injection-Info, but I'm willing > to keep it around as a compromise and given that, I think it > probably does make sense to combine the two. And I'm no fan of your URL idea, but with a MIME parameter in Injection-Info you're very near to your goal: You could use the format in RfC 2017 with its folding rules. Don't mention RfC 2231, or I'd continue my whining about complaint URLs ;-) > not imposing arbitrary limits on fields. A URL is more > general and more flexible than an e-mail address; I don't > know if, ten years down the road, we'll regret having only > an e-mail address or will want a URL That's why you want a URL, because we'll regret it as soon as it's available. Injection-Info: stuff; more=stuff; abuse-reports*1="mailto:" abuse-reports*2="news%40funny.example" abuse-reports*3="?subject=complaint%20about%20" abuse-reports*4="Message-ID%20%3Crandom+timestamp%40" abuse-reports*5="spammer.domain.example%3E&Cc=" abuse-reports*6="abuse%40news.funny.example" Flexible indeed. And several pages of security considerations plus an appendix I "IRIs in the abuse-reports parameter of Injection-Info". At least nobody wanted XML and a schema for Injection-Info, today you never know ;-) Bye, Frank 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 iA3MnnW2063576 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 2004 14:49:49 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA3MnnGq063575 for ietf-usefor-skb; Wed, 3 Nov 2004 14:49:49 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp3.Stanford.EDU (smtp3.Stanford.EDU [171.67.16.138]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iA3MnnFb063569 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 2004 14:49:49 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp3.Stanford.EDU (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id iA3Mnrn2018328 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 2004 14:49:53 -0800 Received: (qmail 5729 invoked by uid 1000); 3 Nov 2004 22:49:53 -0000 To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? In-Reply-To: <41895E2E.5C57@xyzzy.claranet.de> (Frank Ellermann's message of "Wed, 03 Nov 2004 23:39:42 +0100") References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <417414F5.6020500@isode.com> <87sm7t6n4e.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <41877F8C.7000402@isode.com> <4187E75F.1099@xyzzy.claranet.de> <4188C9F0.6020905@isode.com> <4188CAD0.1080902@isode.com> <41895E2E.5C57@xyzzy.claranet.de> From: Russ Allbery Organization: The Eyrie Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2004 14:49:53 -0800 Message-ID: <87sm7qwnse.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) XEmacs/21.4 (Security Through Obscurity, linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Frank Ellermann writes: > Okay, then it's clear, and Charles said the same. I like > this proposal, it's less trouble to catch _one_ forged > header with all the injection info (for injecting agents). > The geeks will love it, as Charles said, and only geeks > need the complaint address. And for spammers it's more > difficult to forge the complete Injection-Info. Besides > I like KISS instead of "yet another header". Bye, Frank I'm not particularly a fan of Injection-Info, but I'm willing to keep it around as a compromise and given that, I think it probably does make sense to combine the two. I still do think that the complaint parameter, however we represent it, should be a URL rather than an e-mail address. This is one of those principals like not imposing arbitrary limits on fields. A URL is more general and more flexible than an e-mail address; I don't know if, ten years down the road, we'll regret having only an e-mail address or will want a URL, but I don't see any reason to risk it. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) 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 iA3MeeiK060234 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 2004 14:40:40 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA3MeeSY060233 for ietf-usefor-skb; Wed, 3 Nov 2004 14:40:40 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iA3MeacQ060162 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 2004 14:40:37 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CPTns-0004Is-00 for ; Wed, 03 Nov 2004 23:40:32 +0100 Received: from c-134-93-84.hh.dial.de.ignite.net ([62.134.93.84]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 03 Nov 2004 23:40:32 +0100 Received: from nobody by c-134-93-84.hh.dial.de.ignite.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 03 Nov 2004 23:40:32 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2004 23:39:42 +0100 Organization: Lines: 13 Message-ID: <41895E2E.5C57@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <417414F5.6020500@isode.com> <87sm7t6n4e.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <41877F8C.7000402@isode.com> <4187E75F.1099@xyzzy.claranet.de> <4188C9F0.6020905@isode.com> <4188CAD0.1080902@isode.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: c-134-93-84.hh.dial.de.ignite.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Alexey Melnikov wrote: > I was talking about adding a new field to Injection-Info Okay, then it's clear, and Charles said the same. I like this proposal, it's less trouble to catch _one_ forged header with all the injection info (for injecting agents). The geeks will love it, as Charles said, and only geeks need the complaint address. And for spammers it's more difficult to forge the complete Injection-Info. Besides I like KISS instead of "yet another header". Bye, Frank 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 iA3HCfv3026658 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 2004 09:12:42 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA3HCfNt026656 for ietf-usefor-skb; Wed, 3 Nov 2004 09:12:41 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lon-mail-1.gradwell.net (lon-mail-1.gradwell.net [193.111.201.125]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iA3HCeVm026570 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 2004 09:12:41 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from host62-172-28-77.midband.mdip.bt.net [62.172.28.77] by lon-mail-1.gradwell.net with esmtp (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.148) id 41891183.571c.25a for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Wed, 3 Nov 2004 17:12:35 +0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id iA3HCNF07150 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Wed, 3 Nov 2004 17:12:23 GMT To: LIST: ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20250 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <417414F5.6020500@isode.com> <87sm7t6n4e.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <41877F8C.7000402@isode.com> <4187E75F.1099@xyzzy.claranet.de> Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 12:15:55 GMT Lines: 35 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <4187E75F.1099@xyzzy.claranet.de> Frank Ellermann writes: >Alexey Melnikov wrote: >> I am tempted to say that X-Complaints-To is deprecated and >> it is function is incorporated into Injection-Info. >Good riddance. But how am I supposed to derive an abuse >address from the Injection-Info ? Without the old examples >the new Usefor-01 is gibberish for me. Presumably there would be another parameter to the Injection-Info header of the form: Injection-Info: foo.net; ... ; complaints-to="abuse@foo.net"; ... Indeed, that was the original proposal when Injection-Info was first mooted, but the WG decided that it wanted a separate Complaints-To header. I would prefer to stay with that. I think it depends on which headers the "ordinary user" actually needs to see. It could be argued that the rest of the Injection-Info header is mostly for geeks, rather than for ordinary users. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 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 iA3FYBU0083364 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 2004 07:34:12 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA3FYBVO083363 for ietf-usefor-skb; Wed, 3 Nov 2004 07:34:11 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.90]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iA3FYAG4083288 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 2004 07:34:11 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from richard@highwayman.com) Received: from gti.noc.demon.net ([195.11.55.101] helo=rnc1.al.cl.cam.ac.uk) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 4.42) id 1CPN98-000Ain-7R; Wed, 03 Nov 2004 15:34:02 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 15:32:22 +0000 To: Charles Lindsey Cc: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Richard Clayton Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <417414F5.6020500@isode.com> <87sm7t6n4e.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.02 M Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 In message , Charles Lindsey writes >>I would be curious to know what software other than INN generates >>X-Complaints-To. It, like X-Trace, is an INN invention, and I don't know >>if anyone else has copied it. > >A quick poke around part of my newspool revealed 90% of articles using >X-Trace, and 40% using X-Complaints-To. I have a database of approximately 25 million article headers dating from July 26 through to October 18th (this is pretty much a "full feed" of non-binaries for this period: I gathered them from an experimental system running next to the !demon! peering machine) Of these... 3,620,184 (13.8%) have X-Trace 1,033,266 ( 4.0%) have X-Complaints-To 14,422,971 (55.2%) have both 7,049,506 (27.0%) have neither >Harder to tell which of those were or were not using INN as injecting >agent, but I then grepped for Paths of the form >...!example.net.POSTED!not-for-mail, which I think can safely be assumed >*not* to have used INN for injecting, and I found examples of the >following forms: >202932:X-Complaints-To: abuse@brightview.com >203490:X-Complaints-To: abuse@cv.net >203451:X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net >203105:X-Complaints-To: abuse@nildram.net >202898:X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net >203455:X-Complaints-To: abuse@ptd.net >202656:X-Complaints-To: abuse@readfreenews.com >203485:X-Complaints-To: abuse@rr.com >202848:X-Complaints-To: abuse@virgin.net >202900:X-Complaints-To: abuse@zen.co.uk >202833:X-Complaints-To: http://www.ntlworld.com/netreport there's all sorts of other stuff out there... eg X-Complaints-To: Please report abuse to abuse@usenet4all.com but the overwhelming majority are valid looking email addresses. If it is useful I could give an account of what proportion were nicely formed BTW "X-Trace" is a complete mess to parse automatically, so it's use to anyone other than the injection site is limited (and it may in some cases not assist over-much in identifying that site) - -- richard @ highwayman . com "Nothing seems the same Still you never see the change from day to day And no-one notices the customs slip away" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 iQA+AwUBQYj6BhfnRQV/feRLEQJ2SACfQTByvjzpL0+f2tiukTEwsDyY08QAl1FI qZPmDhy8yG33hLP1SArNOy4= =gx9v -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 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 iA3CB0dd094218 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 2004 04:11:00 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA3CB0HW094217 for ietf-usefor-skb; Wed, 3 Nov 2004 04:11:00 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iA3CAxmv094204 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 2004 04:10:59 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from alexey.melnikov-usefor@isode.com) Received: from [172.16.0.116] (shiny.isode.com [62.3.217.250]) by rufus.isode.com via TCP (internal) with ESMTPA; Wed, 3 Nov 2004 12:10:58 +0000 Message-ID: <4188CAD0.1080902@isode.com> Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2004 12:10:56 +0000 From: Alexey Melnikov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: Frank Ellermann CC: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <417414F5.6020500@isode.com> <87sm7t6n4e.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <41877F8C.7000402@isode.com> <4187E75F.1099@xyzzy.claranet.de> <4188C9F0.6020905@isode.com> In-Reply-To: <4188C9F0.6020905@isode.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Alexey Melnikov wrote: > Frank Ellermann wrote: > >> Alexey Melnikov wrote: >> >>> I am tempted to say that X-Complaints-To is deprecated and >>> it is function is incorporated into Injection-Info. >> >> Good riddance. But how am I supposed to derive an abuse >> address from the Injection-Info ? Without the old examples >> the new Usefor-01 is gibberish for me. >> >> Add news@ to the path-identity maybe ? Is that guaranteed >> to be good for Injection-info ? What about a news@ wanting >> abuse reports sent to another address like abuse@ ? >> >> For your idea we need at least an example and instructions. >> 4.1.4 in Useage doesn't help to understand Injection-Info. > > Of course, this would be addressed in the upcoming USEFOR document. Just to clarify: in my original message I was talking conceptually. All affected document will have to be updated. (And I was talking about adding a new field to Injection-Info that would contain an email address.) 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 iA3C7P5I091400 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 2004 04:07:25 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA3C7Pqn091399 for ietf-usefor-skb; Wed, 3 Nov 2004 04:07:25 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iA3C7ObE091276 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 2004 04:07:24 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from alexey.melnikov-usefor@isode.com) Received: from [172.16.0.116] (shiny.isode.com [62.3.217.250]) by rufus.isode.com via TCP (internal) with ESMTPA; Wed, 3 Nov 2004 12:07:14 +0000 Message-ID: <4188C9F0.6020905@isode.com> Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2004 12:07:12 +0000 From: Alexey Melnikov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Frank Ellermann CC: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <417414F5.6020500@isode.com> <87sm7t6n4e.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <41877F8C.7000402@isode.com> <4187E75F.1099@xyzzy.claranet.de> In-Reply-To: <4187E75F.1099@xyzzy.claranet.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Frank Ellermann wrote: >Alexey Melnikov wrote: > > >>I am tempted to say that X-Complaints-To is deprecated and >>it is function is incorporated into Injection-Info. >> >> > >Good riddance. But how am I supposed to derive an abuse >address from the Injection-Info ? Without the old examples >the new Usefor-01 is gibberish for me. > >Add news@ to the path-identity maybe ? Is that guaranteed >to be good for Injection-info ? What about a news@ wanting >abuse reports sent to another address like abuse@ ? > >For your idea we need at least an example and instructions. >4.1.4 in Useage doesn't help to understand Injection-Info. > > Of course, this would be addressed in the upcoming USEFOR document. >Usefor-13 before the split was monstrous, OTOH it was clear. >It's no more fun to read the split drafts. > > 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 iA2K1x9o061541 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 2004 12:01:59 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA2K1wtq061531 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 2 Nov 2004 12:01:58 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iA2K1rni061468 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 2004 12:01:54 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CP4qi-0001J3-00 for ; Tue, 02 Nov 2004 21:01:48 +0100 Received: from du-001-184.access.de.clara.net ([212.82.227.184]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 02 Nov 2004 21:01:48 +0100 Received: from nobody by du-001-184.access.de.clara.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 02 Nov 2004 21:01:48 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 21:00:31 +0100 Organization: Lines: 21 Message-ID: <4187E75F.1099@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <417414F5.6020500@isode.com> <87sm7t6n4e.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <41877F8C.7000402@isode.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: du-001-184.access.de.clara.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Alexey Melnikov wrote: > I am tempted to say that X-Complaints-To is deprecated and > it is function is incorporated into Injection-Info. Good riddance. But how am I supposed to derive an abuse address from the Injection-Info ? Without the old examples the new Usefor-01 is gibberish for me. Add news@ to the path-identity maybe ? Is that guaranteed to be good for Injection-info ? What about a news@ wanting abuse reports sent to another address like abuse@ ? For your idea we need at least an example and instructions. 4.1.4 in Useage doesn't help to understand Injection-Info. Usefor-13 before the split was monstrous, OTOH it was clear. It's no more fun to read the split drafts. Bye, Frank 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 iA2HUrKA007191 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 2004 09:30:53 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA2HUrV0007190 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 2 Nov 2004 09:30:53 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp2.Stanford.EDU (smtp2.Stanford.EDU [171.67.16.125]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iA2HUqdL007179 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 2004 09:30:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp2.Stanford.EDU (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id iA2HUsUe031851 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 2004 09:30:55 -0800 Received: (qmail 18247 invoked by uid 1000); 2 Nov 2004 17:30:54 -0000 To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? In-Reply-To: (Charles Lindsey's message of "Tue, 2 Nov 2004 17:00:11 GMT") References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <417414F5.6020500@isode.com> <87sm7t6n4e.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> From: Russ Allbery Organization: The Eyrie Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 09:30:54 -0800 Message-ID: <87pt2wyx81.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) XEmacs/21.4 (Security Through Obscurity, linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Charles Lindsey writes: > Harder to tell which of those were or were not using INN as injecting > agent, but I then grepped for Paths of the form > ...!example.net.POSTED!not-for-mail, which I think can safely be assumed > *not* to have used INN for injecting, and I found examples of the > following forms: Not a safe assumption. > Perhaps Bill Davidsen could comment on what Prodigy are using. Prodigy ran INN at least in part, last I'd heard. The count of X-Trace in your sample is suspiciously high, causing me to suspect the integrity of your sample. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) 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 iA2HCUJY000265 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 2004 09:12:30 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA2HCUS9000264 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 2 Nov 2004 09:12:30 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lon-mail-3.gradwell.net (lon-mail-3.gradwell.net [193.111.201.127]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iA2HCT4Z000257 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 2004 09:12:29 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from host81-144-72-27.midband.mdip.bt.net [81.144.72.27] by lon-mail-3.gradwell.net with esmtp (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.148) id 4187bffe.b3f2.10 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Tue, 2 Nov 2004 17:12:30 +0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id iA2HCFZ28105 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Tue, 2 Nov 2004 17:12:15 GMT To: LIST: ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20244 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <417414F5.6020500@isode.com> <87sm7t6n4e.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 17:00:11 GMT Lines: 53 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <87sm7t6n4e.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Russ Allbery writes: >(Catching up from having been on vacation.) >Charles Lindsey writes: >> No software generates this header, but lots of software generates the >> X-Complaints-To header (and for email too, I believe), which is >> essentially identical (but we cannot standardize X-headers). >I would be curious to know what software other than INN generates >X-Complaints-To. It, like X-Trace, is an INN invention, and I don't know >if anyone else has copied it. A quick poke around part of my newspool revealed 90% of articles using X-Trace, and 40% using X-Complaints-To. Harder to tell which of those were or were not using INN as injecting agent, but I then grepped for Paths of the form ...!example.net.POSTED!not-for-mail, which I think can safely be assumed *not* to have used INN for injecting, and I found examples of the following forms: 202932:X-Complaints-To: abuse@brightview.com 203490:X-Complaints-To: abuse@cv.net 203451:X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net 203105:X-Complaints-To: abuse@nildram.net 202898:X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net 203455:X-Complaints-To: abuse@ptd.net 202656:X-Complaints-To: abuse@readfreenews.com 203485:X-Complaints-To: abuse@rr.com 202848:X-Complaints-To: abuse@virgin.net 202900:X-Complaints-To: abuse@zen.co.uk 202833:X-Complaints-To: http://www.ntlworld.com/netreport and in a separate bit of grepping: X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com Don't worry about the ntlworld one. They are known to be terminally clueless :-( . Perhaps Bill Davidsen could comment on what Prodigy are using. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 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 iA2Cbd3X002284 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 2004 04:37:39 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA2Cbd6K002283 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 2 Nov 2004 04:37:39 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iA2Cbbjg002270 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 2004 04:37:38 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from alexey.melnikov-usefor@isode.com) Received: from [172.16.0.116] (shiny.isode.com [62.3.217.250]) by rufus.isode.com via TCP (internal) with ESMTPA; Tue, 2 Nov 2004 12:37:34 +0000 Message-ID: <41877F8C.7000402@isode.com> Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 12:37:32 +0000 From: Alexey Melnikov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Russ Allbery CC: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <417414F5.6020500@isode.com> <87sm7t6n4e.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> In-Reply-To: <87sm7t6n4e.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Russ Allbery wrote: >(Catching up from having been on vacation.) > >Charles Lindsey writes: > > >>No software generates this header, but lots of software generates the >>X-Complaints-To header (and for email too, I believe), which is >>essentially identical (but we cannot standardize X-headers). >> >> > >I would be curious to know what software other than INN generates >X-Complaints-To. It, like X-Trace, is an INN invention, and I don't know >if anyone else has copied it. > > At this time I am tempted to say that X-Complaints-To is deprecated and it is function is incorporated into Injection-Info. Alexey 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 iA21iEwV044043 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 2004 17:44:14 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA21iEeB044042 for ietf-usefor-skb; Mon, 1 Nov 2004 17:44:14 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp2.Stanford.EDU (smtp2.Stanford.EDU [171.67.16.125]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iA21iEnw044013 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 2004 17:44:14 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp2.Stanford.EDU (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id iA21iHsb012547 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 2004 17:44:17 -0800 Received: (qmail 27744 invoked by uid 1000); 2 Nov 2004 01:44:17 -0000 To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? In-Reply-To: (Charles Lindsey's message of "Tue, 19 Oct 2004 20:57:44 GMT") References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <417414F5.6020500@isode.com> From: Russ Allbery Organization: The Eyrie Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 17:44:17 -0800 Message-ID: <87sm7t6n4e.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) XEmacs/21.4 (Security Through Obscurity, linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: (Catching up from having been on vacation.) Charles Lindsey writes: > No software generates this header, but lots of software generates the > X-Complaints-To header (and for email too, I believe), which is > essentially identical (but we cannot standardize X-headers). I would be curious to know what software other than INN generates X-Complaints-To. It, like X-Trace, is an INN invention, and I don't know if anyone else has copied it. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)