Re: Strong Opposition due to spam blowback issues - Re: Last Call: draft

Hi.

I have a court-imposed filing deadline to meet of Aug 31 (See 
www.caringaboutsecurity.wordpress.com and/or 
www.elvey.com/spam/70-ORDER-GrantingElveyLeaveToFileMemorandumExplainingObjections.pdf 
- it's apropos my representation of 6 million TD Ameritrade customers in 
an Identity Theft Class Action lawsuit) and am working and going camping 
this month as well, so I anticipate being unable to respond this month.  
If you would wait 'till the first September telechat, please.  Will you 
do that?
I will state that I don't believe your characterization of the WG view 
is accurate, or appropriate.  There was WG rough consensus earlier 
versions of the draft which, unlike the current one, would not knowingly 
exacerbate the spam problem.  There was not much evidence of either 
broad support for or opposition to the current draft in the WG. Who do 
you count as having expressed being in consensus.
*ECONOMICS*
There's a strong economic incentive for those behind implementations 
that would require a lot of work to fix to make a concerted effort to 
actively support weakening the standard.  The economic costs due to the 
blowback are very diffuse - spread out over most of the Internet-using 
population, in contrast to the concentrated, but IMO relatively small 
cost of fixing the archaic implementations...  I'm all for considering 
economic efficiency, but both sides need to be weighed and weighed fairly
You do/did do work for Sun, right?  Seems like there's the appearance of 
a conflict of interest to me.  Note: I'm not accusing you of anything; 
I'm just saying that there seems to be a conflict of interest, and you 
did request the Last Call and characterize the WG views.
-Matthew

On 8/7/08 6:44 PM, Lisa Dusseault wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm on vacation next week so I haven't put this document on the Aug 14 
> IESG telechat.  The Aug 28 telechat is the next opportunity for IESG 
> Evaluation.  That timing gives you three weeks before the first 
> possible decision on the document.
> The WG considered your arguments in the past year, so presumably new 
> arguments, a fleshed-out compromise proposal, or an IETF-wide 
> consensus would be needed to sway or overrule the WG.  I understand 
> the frustration of having work you initiated and contributed to taken 
> in a direction you do not like, but that in itself isn't an argument 
> against the WG's decision.  I look forward to your alternative proposal.
> Thanks,
> Lisa
>
> On Aug 7, 2008, at 12:09 PM, Matthew Elvey wrote:
>
> > Hello.  I am the original author of this I-D.
> >
> > I am strongly opposed to the document in its current form (-07).
> >
> > I wrote the original draft primarily to address the backscatter 
> > problem* from Sieve implementations that I worked with, problems the 
> > creation of which was mandated by the original Sieve specification.
> > I wrote (with assistance from Alexey Melnikov) several drafts, which 
> > effectively addressed my concerns.  Versions that accomplished the 
> > goal that motivated the whole effort were developed that were 
> > entirely adequate for becoming an RFC-level standard, however bitrot 
> > set in, along with an effort to simplify the base specification which 
> > created a need for significant changes.   They also received a 
> > stronger level of support than -07.
> > I will be introducing and arguing for a revision subsequent to the 
> > current -07 draft to address the concerns I have raised on-list, and 
> > request that the IESG not make a decision in less than a few weeks so 
> > I have a chance to do so and receive feedback.
> > Recent versions have been a fundamental departure from the versions 
> > that have Alexey and I listed as coauthors, and pervert the goal of 
> > the standard I initiated.
> > I do not believe the IETF wants to be known for knowingly 
> > exacerbating the spam problem, in particular the backscatter problem, 
> > and I belive adoption of -07 does that by endorsing a practice and 
> > architecture that does so, i.e. the archaic store-and-forward, 
> > instead of the modern 'transparent SMTP proxy'** architecture.
> > *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backscatter_(e-mail)
> >
> > **http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transparent_SMTP_proxy
> >
> > On 7/27/08 8:02 AM, The IESG wrote:
> > > The IESG has received a request from the Sieve Mail Filtering Language
> > > WG (sieve) to consider the following document:
> > >
> > > - 'Sieve Email Filtering: Reject and Extended Reject Extensions '
> > > <draft-ietf-sieve-refuse-reject-07.txt> as a Proposed Standard
> > >
> > > This document has a normative reference to RFC 2033 which documents 
> > > LMTP,
> > > Local Mail Transfor Protocol.  Support for LMTP is not required for
> > > servers supporting the mechanisms in this specification.  The
> > > procedure of RFC 3967 is applied in this last call to approve the
> > > downward reference.
> > >
> > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> > > final comments on this action.  Please send substantive comments to the
> > > ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing lists by 2008-08-10. Exceptionally,
> > > comments may be sent to iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org instead. In either case, please
> > > retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
> > >
> > > The file can be obtained via
> > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sieve-refuse-reject-07.txt 
> > >
> > >
> > > IESG discussion can be tracked via
> > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=13141&rfc_flag=0 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ietf mailing list
> > Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf