IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [marf] Last Call: <draft-ietf-marf-spf-reporting-08.txt> (SPF Authentication Failure Reporting using the Abuse Report Format) to Proposed Standard

SM <sm@resistor.net> Thu, 01 March 2012 23:24 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA74F21F8755 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 15:24:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.646
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.646 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.047, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QQ5WApU2LcdC for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 15:24:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D107721F8753 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 15:24:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q21NOYci008791 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 15:24:37 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1330644278; i=@resistor.net; bh=ae3hbNnz9Z+DcNJA6U6VCIq32fB5am/T49r0/XRyaNA=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=SoxZMlLRJr59c3PwGRUEA4ruxjdD31z810LooenCYIRY+KC6CfjJpiK+niOme1Yv0 WV3HbtQ10jwXl15kSj3J4MTEj5EfFi0GIG9QIle+lPhCarXX75L6tXpX81ubhWHm3v EJ8iGHT35eSXArYqqDMJOPQKOtBM+Ku6UEUJPFww=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1330644278; i=@resistor.net; bh=ae3hbNnz9Z+DcNJA6U6VCIq32fB5am/T49r0/XRyaNA=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=IQWS5Kaxwxl+rxFiH9ITIoeeKA0hekbFaZ/fypc1oK3GSrY+oqNBu6QLLTNltiOqZ tEjWbHW0PiKlfIYDvqTGpdyhVh9hNK3wx2ZPQHDQ2KfsQdvWNOAgv8jPRcVwDCJez+ fr8FOhSVfpsVcxOZ5EPYNkWdP47jwDJCUYeXKRq0=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120301141041.09b6b9e0@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 14:31:40 -0800
To: ietf@ietf.org
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
Subject: Re: [marf] Last Call: <draft-ietf-marf-spf-reporting-08.txt> (SPF Authentication Failure Reporting using the Abuse Report Format) to Proposed Standard
In-Reply-To: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392806F917@exch-mbx901.corp.cl oudmark.com>
References: <20120301004643.17274.83943.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120229181328.0a95a9f8@resistor.net> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392806F917@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 23:24:40 -0000

At 11:14 01-03-2012, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>Would "ADMD" and an informative reference to RFC5598 be more appropriate?

   There exist cases in which the administrator of domain name employing
  [SPF] for announcing sending practices may want to know when messages are
   received via unauthorized routing.

>A number of registries are using this wording already and there's 
>been no objection to date.  Do you have a better suggestion?

It's not an objection.  The comments were labelled as editorial.

draft-nottingham-appsawg-happiana-00 contains some suggestions.

Regards,
-sm

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email