IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Thu, 25 August 2011 18:33 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
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 419B721F8BD8 for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 11:33:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.65
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.65 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.069, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 6zEBHCNcFRj6 for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 11:33:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F88B21F8BC5 for <marf@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 11:33:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=test; t=1314297281; bh=yJUeUnS6bl9Vb49CiVaCYn/alXFZ8jTHZp+ufggkrxQ=; l=936; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=b0kdThM4QbukbowoVf63SLbivnG6zSfs6HCG6FTA1x85oM6pcRUsYjAfvzw9KhnQT IOQLK1gBwxLbCh8aED1dshq/ebzD8jkuJH3Yi/Cdl/Vqc9eJjAN0Jgmg4MijecpMAh xzgHAnhbBvDDE0fO5BVASt8xtx8k4ue1Uud9UDoI=
Received: from [172.25.197.158] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.158]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 515, TLS: TLS1.0,256bits,RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 20:34:40 +0200 id 00000000005DC033.000000004E5695C0.000065D5
Message-ID: <4E5695C0.2010508@tana.it>
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 20:34:40 +0200
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.20) Gecko/20110804 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.12
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: marf@ietf.org
References: <20110824170824.DDF68F5808C@smtp.patriot.net>
In-Reply-To: <20110824170824.DDF68F5808C@smtp.patriot.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [marf] Comments on draft-jdfalk-marf-as-00
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <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: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 18:33:29 -0000

On 24/Aug/11 19:19, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
> There should be some discussion of MARF reports initiated from generic
> MUA's rather than MUA's provided by the MSA operator.

I think you mean "MUA's provided by the _Mailbox Provider_ operator",
that is to say, the ones sporting its TiS button.  If not, please clarify.

> There should be a statement that MARF is not meant to replace plain
> text reports to abuse and postmaster, but rather is an additional
> option.

This topic was touched in "Misuse of ARF by spam-friendly ISPs"
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf/current/msg01223.html

JD suggested a separate BCP to discuss spam reporting from general
public.  Murray said he'd be fine with that.  It is still not clear
whether that BCP would be in this WG; and whether in such case the
marf-as would mention it, or vice-versa it should also mention FBLs,
so as to provide an overview of ARF usage.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email