Policy-Mandated Labels Such as "Adv:" in Email Subject Headers Considered Ineffective At Best
draft-malamud-subject-line-05
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2012-08-22
|
05 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Brian Carpenter |
2012-08-22
|
05 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Record position for Mark Townsley |
2005-04-07
|
05 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza |
2005-04-06
|
05 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2005-04-06
|
05 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2005-04-06
|
05 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2005-04-06
|
05 | Scott Hollenbeck | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Scott Hollenbeck |
2005-04-06
|
05 | Michelle Cotton | IANA Comments: We understand this document to have no IANA Actions. |
2005-04-05
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-malamud-subject-line-05.txt |
2005-04-05
|
05 | (System) | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Mark Townsley has been changed to No Record from Discuss |
2005-04-05
|
05 | Brian Carpenter | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Brian Carpenter has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Brian Carpenter |
2005-04-04
|
05 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
2005-04-04
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-malamud-subject-line-04.txt |
2005-04-01
|
05 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2005-03-31 |
2005-03-31
|
05 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza |
2005-03-31
|
05 | Sam Hartman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sam Hartman by Sam Hartman |
2005-03-31
|
05 | Mark Townsley | [Ballot comment] > is contained in [RFC2822]. The the normative requirements that apply > to all headers are: Double "the" |
2005-03-31
|
05 | Mark Townsley | [Ballot discuss] Useful document, but I have to agree with the Gen-Art review that the politicly-incorrect overtones could be reduced here without abandoning the point. |
2005-03-31
|
05 | Mark Townsley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Mark Townsley by Mark Townsley |
2005-03-30
|
05 | David Kessens | [Ballot comment] Comments from the Ops directorate by Pekka Savola (Mar 30 17:47:13 PST 2005): Seems like a useful document. I'm personally a bit dubious … [Ballot comment] Comments from the Ops directorate by Pekka Savola (Mar 30 17:47:13 PST 2005): Seems like a useful document. I'm personally a bit dubious whether the solicitation class keywords approach has been sufficiently explored yet to know if it has issues or not.. but I guess we'll just have to see. (Also see draft-malamud-keyword-discovery-03.txt) A particular concern, possibly to be addressed in a different document, is the assumption that the users are able to insert properly formatted and correct solicitation keywords in the message, which can be sanely parsed by a computer. Effectively, this allows anyone to perform a DoS on someone else's resources (assuming specifying something like net.example.adv would result in everyone going and taking a look at "adv" policy at example.net -- then flooding example.net). A maliscious advertiser could also insert improperly formatted keywords, or insert 100 such keywords which will time out, consuming even more processing than receiving the message would have done. editorial: - in Abstract, s/Internet-Draft/memo/ also elsewhere in the draft - remove the 'Terminology' section and the SHOULD in section 6, it does not belong to an Informational RFC like this. |
2005-03-30
|
05 | David Kessens | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for David Kessens by David Kessens |
2005-03-30
|
05 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Russ Housley by Russ Housley |
2005-03-30
|
05 | Brian Carpenter | [Ballot discuss] Needs editing to avoid offending non-Anglo-Saxons. See below for details Document: draft-malamud-subject-line-03.txt Trigger: IETF telechat, 31 March 2005 Reviewer: Elwyn Davies AD: Scott … [Ballot discuss] Needs editing to avoid offending non-Anglo-Saxons. See below for details Document: draft-malamud-subject-line-03.txt Trigger: IETF telechat, 31 March 2005 Reviewer: Elwyn Davies AD: Scott Hollenbeck Review Date: 30 March 2005 Intended status: Informational Summary: This work should be published after reworking parts of section 3 to improve its political correctness and give due consideration to an international audience. Review: The arguments against trying to identify email SPAM through subject line labels are well rehearsed, and convincing in this draft. However, I think that Section 3 (Implementing a Labeling Requirement) needs some rework. The section endeavours to bring out the problem through a humorous scenario. I have three problems with this: 1. The humour may well be lost on readers without a North American/European background. 2. The cod-french 'native language' alternative to SPAM ("Pate-du-Cochon- Degoutant-a-la-Facon-Hormel") is inappropriately derogatory (I don't think I need to spell out the legal minefield here). If we must, "Pate-de- Cochon-Facon-Hormel" gets the message across without derogatory overtones. 3. Without getting too politically correct, I don't think implicitly poking fun at two communities is appropriate in an international standards document. As for the legal profession... Sorry if this is a bit po-faced, but it would be a pity to see a serious commentary lost sight of because a minor part offends some sensibilities. Couple of nits: Section 2: "Although the subject line is in theory of unlimited lengths" s/lengths/length Section 8 (security): I'd like to see this before the conclusions. Section 3: RFC715 recommends the use of "Sue, Grabbit and Run" where an example of a firm of legal persons is required:-) |
2005-03-30
|
05 | Brian Carpenter | [Ballot discuss] Needs editing to avoid offending non-Anglo-Saxons. See below for details Document: draft-malamud-subject-line-03.txt Trigger: IETF telechat, 31 March 2005 Reviewer: Elwyn Davies AD: Scott … [Ballot discuss] Needs editing to avoid offending non-Anglo-Saxons. See below for details Document: draft-malamud-subject-line-03.txt Trigger: IETF telechat, 31 March 2005 Reviewer: Elwyn Davies AD: Scott Hollenbeck Review Date: 30 March 2005 Intended status: Informational Summary: This work should be published after reworking parts of section 3 to improve its political correctness and give due consideration to an international audience. Review: The arguments against trying to identify email SPAM through subject line labels are well rehearsed, and convincing in this draft. However, I think that Section 3 (Implementing a Labeling Requirement) needs some rework. The section endeavours to bring out the problem through a humorous scenario. I have three problems with this: 1. The humour may well be lost on readers without a North American/European background. 2. The cod-french 'native language' alternative to SPAM ("Pate-du-Cochon- Degoutant-a-la-Facon-Hormel") is inappropriately derogatory (I don't think I need to spell out the legal minefield here). If we must, "Pate-de- Cochon-Facon-Hormel" gets the message across without derogatory overtones. 3. Without getting too politically correct, I don't think implicitly poking fun at two communities is appropriate in an international standards document. As for the legal profession... Sorry if this is a bit po-faced, but it would be a pity to see a serious commentary lost sight of because a minor part offends some sensibilities. Couple of nits: Section 2: "Although the subject line is in theory of unlimited lengths" s/lengths/length Section 8 (security): I'd like to see this before the conclusions. Section 3: RFC715 recommends the use of "Sue, Grabbit and Run" where an example of a firm of legal persons is required:-) |
2005-03-30
|
05 | Brian Carpenter | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Brian Carpenter by Brian Carpenter |
2005-03-24
|
05 | Scott Hollenbeck | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Scott Hollenbeck |
2005-03-24
|
05 | Scott Hollenbeck | Ballot has been issued by Scott Hollenbeck |
2005-03-24
|
05 | Scott Hollenbeck | Created "Approve" ballot |
2005-03-24
|
05 | Scott Hollenbeck | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Scott Hollenbeck |
2005-03-24
|
05 | Scott Hollenbeck | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2005-03-31 by Scott Hollenbeck |
2005-03-24
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-malamud-subject-line-03.txt |
2005-03-22
|
05 | (System) | State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system |
2005-02-22
|
05 | Amy Vezza | Last call sent |
2005-02-22
|
05 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza |
2005-02-21
|
05 | Scott Hollenbeck | State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup by Scott Hollenbeck |
2005-02-21
|
05 | Scott Hollenbeck | Last Call was requested by Scott Hollenbeck |
2005-02-21
|
05 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2005-02-21
|
05 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2005-02-21
|
05 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2005-02-21
|
05 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
2005-02-21
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-malamud-subject-line-02.txt |
2005-02-18
|
05 | Scott Hollenbeck | State Changes to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from AD Evaluation by Scott Hollenbeck |
2005-02-18
|
05 | Scott Hollenbeck | I would really like to see a discussion of the security implications of subject line tagging included in the "Security Considerations" section. With that included, … I would really like to see a discussion of the security implications of subject line tagging included in the "Security Considerations" section. With that included, I believe the document will be ready for last call. |
2005-02-18
|
05 | Scott Hollenbeck | State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Scott Hollenbeck |
2005-02-08
|
05 | Scott Hollenbeck | Draft Added by Scott Hollenbeck in state Publication Requested |
2005-02-07
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-malamud-subject-line-01.txt |
2005-01-31
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-malamud-subject-line-00.txt |