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> Wed, 08 February 2012 20:20 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 03F8C21F8564 for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 12:20:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.163
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.163 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.392, BAYES_00=-2.599, DATE_IN_PAST_03_06=0.044]
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 3uXJ+kCimssj for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 12:19:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.patriot.net (smtp.patriot.net [209.249.176.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64E8B21F855F for <marf@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 12:19:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ECS60015111 (unknown [69.72.27.202]) (Authenticated sender: shmuel@patriot.net) by smtp.patriot.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A14FF5809A for <marf@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 15:05:23 -0500 (EST)
From: Shmuel Metz <shmuel+mail-abuse-feedback-report@patriot.net>
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 11:54:39 -0500
To: marf@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <17BC3B48-8118-442C-A51C-8D7A7043C982@wordtothewise.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: <20120208200524.9A14FF5809A@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: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 20:20:00 -0000

In <17BC3B48-8118-442C-A51C-8D7A7043C982@wordtothewise.com>, on
02/08/2012
   at 06:26 AM, Steve Atkins <steve@wordtothewise.com> said:

>8.1 talks about sending unsolicited reports of authentication failure
>while 9.1 states that unsolicited reports of authentication failure
>MUST NOT be sent. One of those likely needs to change (probably 8.1).

I agree. If there's no abuse issue and the sender has not requested
feedback on authentication failure then there's not much point in
sending the feedback. If the e-mail client is sending legitimate mail
that fails validation then the potential volume should be enough to
justify the MUST NOT.

8.5 and 9.2 also have MUST. In the case of 8.5, it does not seem to
satisfy 6. in RFC 2119. In the case of 9.2, I believe that it is
legitimate in order to prevent loops. 

-- 
     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