IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [marf] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-marf-as-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com> Thu, 26 April 2012 17:05 UTC

Return-Path: <msk@cloudmark.com>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 903AF21E80DA for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 10:05:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.558
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.558 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.041, 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 MP685YORSHYv for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 10:05:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.cloudmark.com (cmgw1.cloudmark.com [208.83.136.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA5B621E801E for <marf@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 10:05:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com ([72.5.239.26]) by mail.cloudmark.com with bizsmtp id 2h5b1j0010as01C01h5bCM; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 10:05:35 -0700
X-CMAE-Match: 0
X-CMAE-Score: 0.00
X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=K4ag7lqI c=1 sm=1 a=QMZKka45TBd+hNGtXG2bIg==:17 a=LvckAehuu68A:10 a=jFJSP0USmwIA:10 a=zutiEJmiVI4A:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=EUspDBNiAAAA:8 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=VfXBCpKm-0JUrDLpo2gA:9 a=UTXjic7dlDEF9oe4XPcA:7 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=IG2fH9E8heMA:10 a=lZB815dzVvQA:10 a=QMZKka45TBd+hNGtXG2bIg==:117
Received: from EXCH-MBX901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::addf:849a:f71c:4a82]) by exch-htcas902.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::54de:dc60:5f3e:334%10]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 10:05:12 -0700
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>
Thread-Topic: [marf] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-marf-as-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHNI8nqygl0MAt8ukOWsJJ+wHk4pJatVLiQ
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 17:05:12 +0000
Message-ID: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E003928103D0D@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <20120423094450.10355.95358.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4F989190.20200@qualcomm.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E003928103065@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <2738950.6u00tuJOUs@scott-latitude-e6320> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039281031E1@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <4F99780A.1070900@qualcomm.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F99780A.1070900@qualcomm.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [172.20.2.121]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cloudmark.com; s=default; t=1335459935; bh=+s3WLjGOkDrG4U8/G9GwI4IDBlR0ZL6dwN3seicA1kc=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=dDrLXndLJ5kQ4PBDFXG1SOSuwx+EZM3R0pmBc0Hr9e25u+524Dx8gkuLid47Xgwj3 zWdLSmS/PU53QwXtDprOhZpo2NHUi1CrUC09Qsh9STkT+ghQPfmjsAqdcOJFUJC9Ao HV0rL11GEiplF4pwGSuM3nyOo/K4aqgkBO+X1mCg=
Cc: "marf@ietf.org" <marf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [marf] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-marf-as-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 17:05:25 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pete Resnick [mailto:presnick@qualcomm.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 9:30 AM
> To: Murray S. Kucherawy
> Cc: marf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [marf] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-marf-as-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> 
> Murray, please give me OLD/NEW for these two changes and I'll put it in
> the RFC Editor notes. I'd rather not have a -17 in this particular
> case.

Ask and ye shall receive.

OLD (Section 1):

   Further introduction to this topic may be found in [RFC6449], which
   is effectively an Applicability Statement written outside of the IETF
   and thus never achieved IETF consensus.  Much of the content for that
   document was input to this one.

NEW:

   Further introduction to this topic may be found in [RFC6449], which
   has more information about the general topic of abuse reporting.  Many
   of the specific ARF guidelines in this document were taken from the
   principles presented in [RFC6449].

OLD (Section 5.1):

   2.  Message authentication is generally a good idea, but it is
       especially important to encourage credibility of and thus
       response to unsolicited reports.  Therefore, as with any other
       message, Feedback Providers sending unsolicited reports SHOULD
       send reports that they believe will pass Sender Policy Framework
       ([RFC4408]) and/or DomainKeys Identified Mail ([RFC6376]) checks.

NEW:

   2.  Message authentication is generally a good idea, but it is
       especially important to encourage credibility of and thus
       response to unsolicited reports.  Therefore, as with any other
       message, Feedback Providers sending unsolicited reports SHOULD
       send reports that they expect will pass Sender Policy Framework
       ([RFC4408]) and/or DomainKeys Identified Mail ([RFC6376]) checks.

-MSK

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email