IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com> Sat, 03 March 2012 00:54 UTC

Return-Path: <scott@kitterman.com>
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 D6E3D21E808F for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Mar 2012 16:54:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.584
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.584 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.015, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 JuCXZyiIDsdM for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Mar 2012 16:54:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailout02.controlledmail.com (mailout02.controlledmail.com [72.81.252.18]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1182F21E808B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Mar 2012 16:54:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailout02.controlledmail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailout02.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82C1E20E40DA; Fri, 2 Mar 2012 19:54:18 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=kitterman.com; s=2007-00; t=1330736058; bh=pK0qycmmNmKG5xXeZOsarPmgeFohsrvCgcCvQZKxLwk=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type; b=QxJclQ5jn/VEB4gJpBhKiVQikaD9pmU6OHJZsEVfmRAjYhkw9sbK/j8NAdPXz5YTj 4rR4NlwaHw9khWRubdgnngQmBqxnJVHRraJxQt/tq9wWheUzqChxPwFSgww8Pb/Xlj VIvRjIR927ltJEx1oh/CviQXMDmoO42WMayhSFXw=
Received: from scott-latitude-e6320.localnet (static-72-81-252-21.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [72.81.252.21]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailout02.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6566C20E408E; Fri, 2 Mar 2012 19:54:18 -0500 (EST)
From: Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-marf-spf-reporting-08.txt> (SPF Authentication Failure Reporting using the Abuse Report Format) to Proposed Standard
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2012 19:27:35 -0500
Message-ID: <8216968.xi76SI5ueq@scott-latitude-e6320>
User-Agent: KMail/4.7.3 (Linux/3.0.0-16-generic-pae; KDE/4.7.4; i686; ; )
In-Reply-To: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392807309D@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <20120301004643.17274.83943.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <1349422.baAQMnczus@scott-latitude-e6320> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392807309D@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-AV-Checked: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
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: Sat, 03 Mar 2012 00:54:19 -0000

On Friday, March 02, 2012 06:43:32 PM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ietf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> > Scott Kitterman Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 7:23 AM
> > To: ietf@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-marf-spf-reporting-08.txt> (SPF
> > Authentication Failure Reporting using the Abuse Report Format) to
> > Proposed Standard
> > 
> > Based on that, I think that the sentence in paragraph 6 could be lost
> > without losing anything important, so I think it should stay as it is.
> 
> Yes, I suggest that the sentence that comprises Section 6 proper can be
> dropped.  The text currently in 6.1 can be moved up to 6, and the current
> 6.1 thus removed.

Done in my local copy.

> > It might be worth someone looking at
> > draft-ietf-marf-authfailure-report-10 again to see if that's really
> > appropriate.
> 
> I'll take a second look.

Thanks.

Scott K

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email