Mark E. Mallett | 1 Oct 19:00 2004

Re: -01 revision of proposed sieve WG charter


On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 04:13:41PM -0700, ned.freed <at> mrochek.com wrote:

> (2) Produce updated sieve relational (RFC 3431), subaddress (RFC 3598),
>     spamtest/virustest (RFC 3685), and copy extension specifications,

The "copy extensions specifications" being "draft-degener-sieve-copy" ?
Why is it listed in (2) and not in (3)?  (not that it really matters I
guess, just wanted to make sure it's included...)

Also the "draft-daboo-sieve-include" draft is not mentioned (which is OK
with me -- I didn't care for the include draft the way it was but think
that some kind of include facility is important).  I'm assuming it's
left out because of the lack of "willingness to implement" that you
said later, but again, just pointing out that it's not there.

My only other comment is about the rapid schedule on the variables
draft- I had some thoughts that would probably not be appropriate if the
draft is to be sent through at this rate.

-mm-


Cyrus Daboo | 1 Oct 19:47 2004

Re: -01 revision of proposed sieve WG charter


Hi Mark,

--On Friday, October 1, 2004 1:00 PM -0400 "Mark E. Mallett" 
<mem <at> mv.mv.com> wrote:

>> (2) Produce updated sieve relational (RFC 3431), subaddress (RFC 3598),
>>     spamtest/virustest (RFC 3685), and copy extension specifications,
>
> The "copy extensions specifications" being "draft-degener-sieve-copy" ?
> Why is it listed in (2) and not in (3)?  (not that it really matters I
> guess, just wanted to make sure it's included...)

That draft is currently in the RFC Editor queue waiting to be published, 
and hopefully will be very soon - so it is correct to put it under (2) 
thought there is no RFC number assigned to it right now.

> Also the "draft-daboo-sieve-include" draft is not mentioned (which is OK
> with me -- I didn't care for the include draft the way it was but think
> that some kind of include facility is important).  I'm assuming it's
> left out because of the lack of "willingness to implement" that you
> said later, but again, just pointing out that it's not there.

There was a lack of interest to implement this expressed at the lunch 
session in San Diego, and hence it was left out of the WG items. I know 
that the CMU folks did implement it and they had no comments back to me 
after doing that. At this point we could just do a last call with it aimed 
either for Proposed or Experimental depending on whether anyone else might 
implement it in the future...

(Continue reading)

Mark E. Mallett | 1 Oct 19:58 2004

Re: -01 revision of proposed sieve WG charter


On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 01:47:28PM -0400, Cyrus Daboo wrote:
> --On Friday, October 1, 2004 1:00 PM -0400 "Mark E. Mallett" 
> <mem <at> mv.mv.com> wrote:
> 
> >My only other comment is about the rapid schedule on the variables
> >draft- I had some thoughts that would probably not be appropriate if the
> >draft is to be sent through at this rate.
> >
> 
> Please post any comments you have. Note that a new -04 version of the draft 
> was posted a couple of weeks ago.

Saw that..  One thing I wondered is whether it was appropriate to open
up more conversation about variables on this list in light of the fact a
new working group is being created (making the bold assumption that I'd
be admitted to it, of course :-) ).  I'm guilty of waiting way too long
to comment, unfortunately.

mm

Cyrus Daboo | 1 Oct 20:04 2004

Re: -01 revision of proposed sieve WG charter


Hi Mark,

--On Friday, October 1, 2004 1:58 PM -0400 "Mark E. Mallett" 
<mem <at> mv.mv.com> wrote:

>> Please post any comments you have. Note that a new -04 version of the
>> draft  was posted a couple of weeks ago.
>
> Saw that..  One thing I wondered is whether it was appropriate to open
> up more conversation about variables on this list in light of the fact a
> new working group is being created (making the bold assumption that I'd
> be admitted to it, of course :-) ).  I'm guilty of waiting way too long
> to comment, unfortunately.

It is entirely appropriate to do that, the WG is merely a continuation of 
the work done on the mailing list. There is no reason to delay work on the 
drafts waiting for the WG to actually be setup (assuming we do get approval 
from ADs and IESG).

--

-- 
Cyrus Daboo

Jutta Degener | 1 Oct 20:10 2004

Re: -01 revision of proposed sieve WG charter


On Fri, Oct 00, 2004 at 01:00:28PM -0400, Mark E. Mallett wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 04:13:41PM -0700, ned.freed <at> mrochek.com wrote:
> 
> > (2) Produce updated sieve relational (RFC 3431), subaddress (RFC 3598),
> >     spamtest/virustest (RFC 3685), and copy extension specifications,
> 
> The "copy extensions specifications" being "draft-degener-sieve-copy" ?
> Why is it listed in (2) and not in (3)?  (not that it really matters I
> guess, just wanted to make sure it's included...)

By the time Ned's document is published,
the copy extension is very likely to have become an RFC.

Jutta

ned.freed | 2 Oct 00:39 2004

Re: -01 revision of proposed sieve WG charter


> On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 01:47:28PM -0400, Cyrus Daboo wrote:
> > --On Friday, October 1, 2004 1:00 PM -0400 "Mark E. Mallett"
> > <mem <at> mv.mv.com> wrote:
> >
> > >My only other comment is about the rapid schedule on the variables
> > >draft- I had some thoughts that would probably not be appropriate if the
> > >draft is to be sent through at this rate.
> > >
> >
> > Please post any comments you have. Note that a new -04 version of the draft
> > was posted a couple of weeks ago.

> Saw that..  One thing I wondered is whether it was appropriate to open
> up more conversation about variables on this list in light of the fact a
> new working group is being created (making the bold assumption that I'd
> be admitted to it, of course :-) ).  I'm guilty of waiting way too long
> to comment, unfortunately.

It is entirely appropriate to start talking about any draft at this point,
regardless of what our WG status is. Although I for one hope we don't make
extensive changes to variables at this point ;-)

				Ned

ned.freed | 2 Oct 05:23 2004

Re: -01 revision of proposed sieve WG charter


> On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 04:13:41PM -0700, ned.freed <at> mrochek.com wrote:

> ...

> Also the "draft-daboo-sieve-include" draft is not mentioned (which is OK
> with me -- I didn't care for the include draft the way it was but think
> that some kind of include facility is important).  I'm assuming it's
> left out because of the lack of "willingness to implement" that you
> said later, but again, just pointing out that it's not there.

The general consensus at the last IETF meeting seemed to be that this
one doesn't belong on the list of WG deliverables now. Maybe later...

				Ned

Matthew Elvey | 4 Oct 21:43 2004
Picon

"refuse" - wording from a MARID post.


Hello.  What follows is from a post to the IETF's MARID mailing list.  
It seems relevant to the "refuse" I-D.
The "Disallow some message recipients" method is well described and 
justified, IMO.

Previous Subject: "Re: TECH-OMISSION: Legal liability for creating 
bounces from forged messages."

On 8/31/2004 2:39 AM, Mark Shewmaker <mark primefactor com> sent forth 
electrons to convey:

>...
>Then let me reword:
>
>=====================================================================
>
>6.5 Vulnerability to unintended participation in Forged DSN attacks.
>
>This vulnerability exists if local policy settings allow for a situation
>in which all of the following are true:
>
>  -  A message is sent to multiple recipients,
>
>  -  The recipients have differing local policy settings
>     with respect to message body requirements,
>
>  -  An ultimate determination of per-recipient nondeliverability
>     cannot be communicated within the SMTP session after the receipt
>     of message data, and
(Continue reading)

Mark E. Mallett | 5 Oct 16:55 2004

Re: -01 revision of proposed sieve WG charter


On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 01:47:28PM -0400, Cyrus Daboo wrote:
> Hi Mark,
> 
> --On Friday, October 1, 2004 1:00 PM -0400 "Mark E. Mallett" 
> <mem <at> mv.mv.com> wrote:
> 
> >>(2) Produce updated sieve relational (RFC 3431), subaddress (RFC 3598),
> >>    spamtest/virustest (RFC 3685), and copy extension specifications,
> >
> >The "copy extensions specifications" being "draft-degener-sieve-copy" ?
> >Why is it listed in (2) and not in (3)?  (not that it really matters I
> >guess, just wanted to make sure it's included...)
> 
> That draft is currently in the RFC Editor queue waiting to be published, 
> and hopefully will be very soon - so it is correct to put it under (2) 
> thought there is no RFC number assigned to it right now.

Ah... thanks.  Saw the notice yesterday, in fact: RFC3894

   ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc3894.txt

mm

Cyrus Daboo | 14 Oct 22:39 2004

Status and BOF Agenda

Hi folks,
The proposed WG charter is in the hands of the ADs right now and going 
through the WG setup review process. That will likely not be complete 
before the meeting next month in Washington, DC, so the ADs have agreed 
that we can hold a proper BOF meeting there (as opposed to our traditional 
ad-hoc lunch BOFs).

I have attached a proposed BOF agenda to this message - please review and 
send comments asap as we want to make sure we get a time slot. Given the 
amount we have to do I am proposing a 2 hour slot, if we can get one.

I will in the next day or so start posting messages to kick off work we 
need to start doing - particularly the base spec revision.

--

-- 
Cyrus Daboo
SIEVE Mail Filtering BOF
IETF-61 Washington, DC

Chairs: Cyrus Daboo <daboo <at> isamet.com>
        Alexey Melnikov <Alexey.Melnikov <at> isode.com>
Mailing list: ietf-mta-filters <at> imc.org>
Subscriptions: mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request <at> imc.org?body=subscribe
List archive: http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/

Agenda

- Introduction (blue sheets, scribe etc)    (1 min)
- Agenda Bashing                            (3 mins)
(Continue reading)


Gmane