Re: [marf] Poll: Importing draft-jdfalk-marf-reporting-discovery

[Douglas Otis <[e-mail]>]

On 6/24/10 4:57 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 7:47 PM, Jeff Macdonald<[e-mail]>  wrote:
>    
>> On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 5:36 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy<[e-mail]>  wrote:
>>
>>      
>>> Does the WG consider this draft a good basis for discussion?
>>>        

Although jdfak-marf reporting is okay, I must admit to preferring the 
approach found in:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-daboo-srv-email-05

This srv mail approach seems like a natural place to make these 
extensions, which allows a way to prioritize a set of preferences.

I am also a bit concerned with the number of options, especially the 
option that allows use of http.  By itself, http is fine, but we have 
seen attempts to place captcha front-ends on these types of inputs, 
which severely limits their utility.  They seem share the attitude with 
those that put spam filters on their abuse feedback.  No kidding.

There will be a number of games played by administrators seeking ways 
divert this input, perhaps to keep it off management's radar.  All of 
the options in the jdfalk-marf report approach are likely to create 
hurdles and barriers that aren't needed.   Using a simpler strategy 
found with srv-email seems better along with a more constrained set of 
input parameters.

If there is any interest in consider this as an alternative, I'd be 
happy to create a draft along these lines as well.

-Doug