[feedback-report] [Fwd: FW: Evidence Use Case]

[J.D. Falk]

Can someone please figure out why the list isn't accepting posts from 
new subscribers?

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	FW: Evidence Use Case
Date: 	Fri, 15 Jul 2005 16:25:06 +1000
From: 	David Jones <DJones at spammatters.com>
To: 	<jdfalk at yahoo-inc.com>



JD,

I am in a similar situation to Vipul in that I could not submit to the
abuse-feedback-report. I initially sent the note below on Jun 23 -
retried a few times without joy.

For a previous submission I sent to Yakov but I think he is currently
away in newly-wed bliss. Could you please do the delivery.

Thanks and regards
David

> 
> ----- Forwarded message from "djones at spammatters.com" 
> <djones at spammatters.com> -----
>     Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 23:56:38 +1000
>     From: "djones at spammatters.com" <djones at spammatters.com>
> Reply-To: "djones at spammatters.com" <djones at spammatters.com>
>  Subject: Evidence Use Case
>       To: "abuse-feedback-report at mipassoc.org" 
> <abuse-feedback-report at mipassoc.org>
> 
> 
> At the risk of triggering grumpiness, I'd like to confirm my 
> comments/questions at MAAWG :)
> 
> 1. A use case exists for using reports in 
> evidentiary/enforcement processes.
> 
> 2. To support this, no material change is required but the 
> following is requested:
> a) I'd actively support the open issue of adding an optional 
> 'munged' indicator.
> Its understood that header and body munging is common for 
> privacy. From my experience, enforcement processes will 
> accept both munged and unmunged data as long as they: (i) get 
> enough unmunged evidence (ii) know which submission are 
> unmunged and of appropriate evidentiary grade.
> b) An optional indicator for human entered content (either 
> structured or free-text). 
> Arrgh you say! We know that any free-form text is usually of 
> zero value in feedback but anecdotal additions may add value 
> later in investigative stages of enforcement.
> 
> 3. Implementers should accept signed feedback reports. 
> (probably outside the scope but just mentioning for implementors).
> 
> I think/hope this Use Case does not undermine the "Simplicity 
> Encourages Adoption" but could add some real value outside 
> normal ISP feedback processes.
> 
> thanks
> David
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------
> This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
> 
> ----- End forwarded message -----
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------
> This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
> 
> 
> 
> 





-- 
J.D. Falk, Anti-spam Product Manager, Yahoo! Mail
jdfalk at yahoo-inc.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/abuse-feedback-report/attachments/20050715/e080211c/attachment.html