IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [marf] Comments on draft-jdfalk-marf-as-00

Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <shmuel+mail-abuse-feedback-report@patriot.net> Fri, 02 September 2011 03:43 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 6E80E21F94C0 for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Sep 2011 20:43:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.822
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.822 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.777, 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 YecVYM073TnR for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Sep 2011 20:43:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.patriot.net (smtp.patriot.net [209.249.176.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95CC221F94BA for <marf@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Sep 2011 20:43:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ECS35455305 (unknown [69.72.27.251]) (Authenticated sender: shmuel@patriot.net) by smtp.patriot.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2298CF58095 for <marf@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Sep 2011 23:35:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: Shmuel Metz <shmuel+mail-abuse-feedback-report@patriot.net>
Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2011 21:07:10 -0400
To: marf@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <E10059DE-53CC-40D4-B64A-0491596D07FD@cybernothing.org>
Mail-Copies-To: nobody
Mail-Followup-To: Message Abuse Report Format working group <MARF@IETF.ORG>
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: <20110902033505.2298CF58095@smtp.patriot.net>
Subject: Re: [marf] Comments on draft-jdfalk-marf-as-00
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: Fri, 02 Sep 2011 03:43:42 -0000

In <E10059DE-53CC-40D4-B64A-0491596D07FD@cybernothing.org>, on
09/01/2011
   at 12:22 PM, "J.D. Falk" <jdfalk-lists@cybernothing.org> said:

>I believe we covered that in marf-base, but I wouldn't be opposed to
>saying it again.  Can you suggest some appropriate language?

Whoops! I sent suggested language for an unrelated item. The test I
suggest for this item is a new paragraph in 1. Introduction

     While it is desirable for network operators to accept
     complaints at abuse and Postmaster mailboxes in MARF
     format, they MUST continue to accept and process plain
     text abuse reports those mailboxes.

-- 
     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