Subject: Re: [marf] Including Mail fields in IODEF
From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: 3 Mar 2013 16:25:58 -0000
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>

In article <CAL0qLwZxwkcJi7Ej0fU5s8k-xZ=[email-masked]>,
Murray S. Kucherawy <[email-masked]> wrote:
>The issue with MARF inside IODEF is that the receiver needs to know that
>the payload being provided inside an EmailMessage element is itself an ARF
>report, and not the message that caused the report in the first place.  You
>certainly could crack open the EmailMessage content and see if conforms to
>the ARF specification to tell which kind of report you've gotten, but that
>seems inelegant.

You also couldn't recognize a complaint about a misdirected ARF report.  That
sort of overloading of fields usually leads to sadness and regret.

>I suppose then another option is an extension element that indicates you've
>received an ARF payload rather than the actual offending message.

That could do it.  Or if you're going to do that, crack apart the ARF report,
put the feedback-report part in the new element, and the message in the
message element.

R's,
John