Skip to main content

SIEVE Email Filtering: Spamtest and VirusTest Extensions
draft-daboo-sieve-spamtest-04

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2012-08-22
04 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Ted Hardie
2003-12-09
04 Amy Vezza State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza
2003-12-08
04 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2003-12-08
04 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2003-12-08
04 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2003-12-04
04 Amy Vezza Removed from agenda for telechat - 2003-12-04 by Amy Vezza
2003-12-04
04 (System) [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Russ Housley
2003-12-04
04 Amy Vezza [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for  by Amy Vezza
2003-12-04
04 Amy Vezza [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for  by Amy Vezza
2003-12-04
04 Ned Freed State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation by Ned Freed
2003-12-04
04 Ned Freed
Some concerns were raised by the IESG as to extensibility
tradeoffs this provides -- is the specific set of
virustest too specific and/or is the …
Some concerns were raised by the IESG as to extensibility
tradeoffs this provides -- is the specific set of
virustest too specific and/or is the ability to test
arbitary strings added by different applications to
general. Only time will tell -- if this turns out to
be busted a recycle at proposed may be in order.
2003-12-04
04 Ned Freed [Note]: 'On IESG agenda 4-Dec-2003' has been cleared by Ned Freed
2003-12-04
04 Ted Hardie [Ballot Position Update] Position for Ted Hardie has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Ted Hardie
2003-12-04
04 Steven Bellovin [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for  by Steve Bellovin
2003-12-04
04 Bert Wijnen [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for  by Bert Wijnen
2003-12-04
04 Alex Zinin [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for  by Alex Zinin
2003-12-04
04 Bill Fenner [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for  by Bill Fenner
2003-12-04
04 Margaret Cullen [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for  by Margaret Wasserman
2003-12-04
04 Jon Peterson [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for  by Jon Peterson
2003-12-03
04 Harald Alvestrand
[Ballot comment]
I consider shipping this stuff at Proposed now to be a Good Thing.
Recycling if we get it slightly wrong (or need to …
[Ballot comment]
I consider shipping this stuff at Proposed now to be a Good Thing.
Recycling if we get it slightly wrong (or need to split the spamstuff from the virusstuff) is not severely hampered by publishing at Proposed now.
2003-12-03
04 Harald Alvestrand [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for  by Harald Alvestrand
2003-12-02
04 Ted Hardie
[Ballot discuss]
I'm wondering if this might not be an extension we suggest spend some time as
an Experimental, with a date for return as …
[Ballot discuss]
I'm wondering if this might not be an extension we suggest spend some time as
an Experimental, with a date for return as Proposed or for further revision.  I'm
concerned that we are doing a couple of different things here:  including spamtest
and virustest in one document (useful, but makes it difficult to adjust later if
we got one wrong).  This is driven not so much by concerns like "why is one 5 and one
10", but by the associations of specific values with specific actions.  The Virustest
actions are:


0          message was not tested for viruses
1          message was tested and contains no known viruses
2          message was tested and contained a known virus which
            was replaced with harmless content
3          message was tested and contained a known virus which
            was "cured" such that it is now harmless
4          message was tested and possibly contains a known virus
5          message was tested and definately contains a known virus

I can easily think of other actions, some of which might be considered side
effects and some of which are primary (e.g. and the individual/postmaster of the site
from which the mail arrived has been warned; using this as a trigger to check
for updated virus definitions, etc.).  By limiting the output to these 6 and
without including a further extension mechanism, we may be
overly limiting this.

Did the mailing list consider other formats, etc?  Was there a lot of discussion on this?
2003-12-02
04 Ted Hardie
[Ballot discuss]
I'm wondering if this might not be an extension we suggest spend some time as
an Experimental, with a date for return as …
[Ballot discuss]
I'm wondering if this might not be an extension we suggest spend some time as
an Experimental, with a date for return as Proposed or for further revision.  I'm
concerned that we are doing a couple of different things here:  including spamtest
and virustest in one document (useful, but makes it difficult to adjust later if
we got one wrong).  This is driven not so much by concerns like "why is one 5 and one
10", but by the associations of specific values with specific actions.  The Virustest
actions are:


0          message was not tested for viruses
1          message was tested and contains no known viruses
2          message was tested and contained a known virus which
            was replaced with harmless content
3          message was tested and contained a known virus which
            was "cured" such that it is now harmless
4          message was tested and possibly contains a known virus
5          message was tested and definately contains a known virus

I can easily think of other actions, some of which might be considered side
effects and some of which are primary (e.g. and the individual/postmaster of the site
from which the mail arrived has been warned; using this as a trigger to check
for updated virus definitions, etc.).  By limiting the output to these 5 and
without including a further extension mechanism, we may be
overly limiting this.

Did the mailing list consider other formats, etc?  Was there a lot of discussion on this?
2003-12-02
04 Ted Hardie [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for  by Ted Hardie
2003-12-02
04 Amy Vezza [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for  by Amy Vezza
2003-12-02
04 Ned Freed [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ned Freed
2003-12-02
04 Ned Freed Ballot has been issued by Ned Freed
2003-12-02
04 Ned Freed Created "Approve" ballot
2003-12-02
04 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2003-12-02
04 (System) Last call text was added
2003-12-02
04 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2003-11-28
04 Ned Freed State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Ned Freed
2003-11-27
04 (System) State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system
2003-11-23
04 Ned Freed Placed on agenda for telechat - 2003-12-04 by Ned Freed
2003-11-23
04 Ned Freed [Note]: 'On IESG agenda 4-Dec-2003' added by Ned Freed
2003-10-29
04 Amy Vezza Last call sent
2003-10-29
04 Amy Vezza State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza
2003-10-28
04 Ned Freed State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD is watching by Ned Freed
2003-10-28
04 Ned Freed [Note]: 'Four week last call for proposed requested 28-Oct-2003
' added by Ned Freed
2003-10-28
04 Ned Freed
New version addresses all major open issues; document
is now ready for IETF last call. Some small items still
need to be fixed:

Title needs …
New version addresses all major open issues; document
is now ready for IETF last call. Some small items still
need to be fixed:

Title needs to be changed to "SIEVE Email Filtering: Spamtest and VirusTest Extensions"

There's a bracket out of alignment in the example in section 3.3

Section 3.3 again: "definately" -> "definitely"
2003-10-21
04 (System) New version available: draft-daboo-sieve-spamtest-04.txt
2003-04-11
04 Ned Freed
There are a few draft nits that will need to be addressed with a revised
version:

(1) The document lacks the required IPR boilerplate. The …
There are a few draft nits that will need to be addressed with a revised
version:

(1) The document lacks the required IPR boilerplate. The IESG has recently
    started pushing back on this.

(2) The change history section needs to be marked "to be removed prior
    to publication as an RFC".

(3) The abstract should refer to the "sieve mail filtering language" rather
    than just "sieve", in order to better put the document in context.

(4) The conventions section should be moved so it appears after the
    introduction and overview.

(5) The abstract should not be numbered.
2003-04-10
03 (System) New version available: draft-daboo-sieve-spamtest-03.txt
2003-03-20
04 Ned Freed
Sieve meeting 19-Mar-2002: Decided to change draft
so spamtest/virustest information has rating number at
the start but may have additional text following. This
can be …
Sieve meeting 19-Mar-2002: Decided to change draft
so spamtest/virustest information has rating number at
the start but may have additional text following. This
can be used to provide things like the list of rules that
fired, the virus that was found, etc. Once this is added
the document should be ready for last call
2003-03-20
04 Ned Freed Draft Added by Freed, Ned
2003-03-06
02 (System) New version available: draft-daboo-sieve-spamtest-02.txt
2002-11-05
01 (System) New version available: draft-daboo-sieve-spamtest-01.txt
2002-07-23
00 (System) New version available: draft-daboo-sieve-spamtest-00.txt