[marf] [Errata Rejected] RFC5965 (7091)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Sat, 03 February 2024 00:28 UTC
Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfcpa.amsl.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 34FDBC14F6E9; Fri, 2 Feb 2024 16:28:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.659
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.659 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HeS88wy1IPWC; Fri, 2 Feb 2024 16:28:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (rfcpa.amsl.com [50.223.129.200]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 59163C14F5EB; Fri, 2 Feb 2024 16:28:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by rfcpa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 499) id 25E121C15595; Fri, 2 Feb 2024 16:28:06 -0800 (PST)
To: vesely@tana.it, ietf@shaftek.org, standards@taugh.com, msk@cloudmark.com
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: superuser@gmail.com, iesg@ietf.org, marf@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20240203002806.25E121C15595@rfcpa.amsl.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2024 16:28:06 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/marf/A00WOqSqE0npBbkuASWKjHq7auE>
Subject: [marf] [Errata Rejected] RFC5965 (7091)
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Sat, 03 Feb 2024 00:28:10 -0000
The following errata report has been rejected for RFC5965, "An Extensible Format for Email Feedback Reports". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7091 -------------------------------------- Status: Rejected Type: Technical Reported by: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Date Reported: 2022-08-16 Rejected by: Murray Kucherawy (IESG) Section: 2 Original Text ------------- e. Except as discussed below, each feedback report MUST be related to only a single email message. Summary and aggregate formats are outside of the scope of this specification. Corrected Text -------------- e. Except when using the Incidents field (see below), each feedback report MUST be related to only a single email message. Summary and aggregate formats are outside of the scope of this specification. Notes ----- There doesn't seem to be another discussion of similarity. --VERIFIER NOTES-- A single report is about a single message, even if it includes a claim that it is similar to other messages. -------------------------------------- RFC5965 (draft-ietf-marf-base-06) -------------------------------------- Title : An Extensible Format for Email Feedback Reports Publication Date : August 2010 Author(s) : Y. Shafranovich, J. Levine, M. Kucherawy Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : Messaging Abuse Reporting Format Area : Applications Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG
- [marf] [Errata Rejected] RFC5965 (7091) RFC Errata System