Subject: [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: false negatives and false positives

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2007 09:35:36 -0800

The SSP document applies the label "suspicious" to messages that well might be 
legitimate and fails to apply it to ones that are not.

At a minimum, the SSP document needs to provide a very clear statement of the 
types of problematic messages it will "catch" and the type that it will not 
(ie, fail to catch.)

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

---

From: Jim Fenton <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 23:36:01 -0800

Dave Crocker wrote:
> The SSP document applies the label "suspicious" to messages that well
> might be legitimate and fails to apply it to ones that are not.

Actually, it's "Suspicious" (note the initial capital S) and if the
issue is that the term is confusing, that is being tracked as issue #1530.
>
> At a minimum, the SSP document needs to provide a very clear statement
> of the types of problematic messages it will "catch" and the type that
> it will not (ie, fail to catch.)

This is issue #1527.

I recommend that this issue be closed as a duplicate of the above two
issues.

-Jim

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 07:46:37 -0800

> Actually, it's "Suspicious" (note the initial capital S) and if the

You are imparting semantic import to the case of the first letter?

> issue is that the term is confusing, that is being tracked as issue #1530.
...
>> it will not (ie, fail to catch.)

My summary of each of the issues:

1527:  Classic threats analysis, to specify the problem domain.

1528:  Portion of a solutions analysis, distinguishing what traffic benefits 
from SSP and what traffic that is of a related nature and is problematic, but 
doesn't get it from SSP.  (Hence the subject line text.)

1530:  Calls for a terminology change.

If you think any of these is the same as the other, we can discuss the point 
further.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker