IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [marf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-marf-as-07.txt

Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <shmuel+mail-abuse-feedback-report@patriot.net> Thu, 09 February 2012 02:45 UTC

Return-Path: <shmuel+gen@patriot.net>
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 76F5611E80B4 for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 18:45:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.212
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.212 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.387, 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 3eZaZh4KQXzT for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 18:45:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.patriot.net (smtp.patriot.net [209.249.176.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD1F711E80BA for <marf@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 18:45:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ECS60015111 (unknown [69.72.27.110]) (Authenticated sender: shmuel@patriot.net) by smtp.patriot.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7E62F580A9 for <marf@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 21:31:20 -0500 (EST)
From: Shmuel Metz <shmuel+mail-abuse-feedback-report@patriot.net>
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 21:45:52 -0500
To: marf@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C9A7DC8A@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>
Mail-Copies-To: nobody
Organization: Atid/2
X-CompuServe-Customer: Yes
X-Coriate: NCAE@NewAmerica.org
X-Coriate: Mark Griffith <markgriffith@rocketmail.com>
X-Punge: Micro$oft
X-Terminate: SPA(GIS)
X-Treme: C&C,DWS
X-Mailer: MR/2 Internet Cruiser Edition for OS/2 v3.00.11.18 BETA/60
Message-Id: <20120209023120.C7E62F580A9@smtp.patriot.net>
Subject: Re: [marf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-marf-as-07.txt
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Message Abuse Report Format working group <MARF@IETF.ORG>
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, 09 Feb 2012 02:45:56 -0000

In
<F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C9A7DC8A@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>,
on 02/08/2012
   at 01:06 PM, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com> said:

>If the reports are for some reason inactionable, then we're already
>saying elsewhere that they shouldn't be sent in the first place.

Indeed; SHOULD NOT. The question is whether there is a case for MUST
NOT.

-- 
     Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
     Atid/2        <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email