Re: [marf] Misuse of ARF by spam-friendly ISPs

["J.D. Falk" <[e-mail]>]

On Aug 3, 2011, at 6:33 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:

>> What is the meaning of a list of non-addressed use cases?  Possibly
>> suggest that they are not worth being addressed in general?
> 
> It's referring to a list of use cases that the ARF was not designed to handle.  There's no intent that I can see to state that those use cases aren't interesting to handle.

Actually, what I meant was that draft-jdfalk-marf-as and draft-jdfalk-maawg-cfblbcp only fully address the complaint feedback loop use case.  There are other cases that ARF can handle, such as spam traps or (maybe) virus/malware reports, which I'd think we should discuss in a separate AS or BCP.

Either way, though, I think that bitching at a single ISP about their abuse@ policy is out of scope for any IETF document.  If that practice becomes common, maybe a "considered harmful" draft could be appropriate.  So far, though, there is one (1) example, which just happens to be a big ISP that some people love to hate.  It would be inappropriate, unprofessional, and somewhat silly to try to use the IETF as a weapon against them.

>> Hmm...
>> that's quite strange, especially considering that everyone likes the
>> monkey butter.
> 
> That's a new one on me.  What does it mean?

http://www.jwz.org/gruntle/monkeybutter.html

--
J.D. Falk
the leading purveyor of industry counter-rhetoric solutions