Policy-Mandated Labels Such as "Adv:" in Email Subject Headers Considered Ineffective At Best
RFC 4096

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.

(Scott Hollenbeck) Yes

(Brian Carpenter) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Sam Hartman) No Objection

(Russ Housley) No Objection

(David Kessens) No Objection

Comment (2005-03-30 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
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.

(Mark Townsley) (was Discuss) No Record

Comment (2005-03-31)
No email
send info
>    is contained in [RFC2822].  The the normative requirements that apply
>    to all headers are:

Double "the"