Skip to main content

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