Re: [marf] Including Mail fields in IODEF

Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <shmuel+mail-abuse-feedback-report@patriot.net> Fri, 22 February 2013 13:27 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 CEF9021F8FCB for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Feb 2013 05:27:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.11
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.11 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-1.11]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id B1go2huKo3Ci for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Feb 2013 05:27:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.patriot.net (smtp.patriot.net [209.249.176.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02CC821F8FCA for <marf@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Feb 2013 05:27:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ECS60015111 (unknown [69.72.27.116]) (Authenticated sender: shmuel@patriot.net) by smtp.patriot.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B1E6F5809C for <marf@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Feb 2013 08:19:41 -0500 (EST)
From: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <shmuel+mail-abuse-feedback-report@patriot.net>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 08:30:41 -0500
To: marf@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <F5063677821E3B4F81ACFB7905573F24D6253D5D@MX15A.corp.emc.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: <20130222131941.5B1E6F5809C@smtp.patriot.net>
Subject: Re: [marf] Including Mail fields in IODEF
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: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 13:27:41 -0000

In <F5063677821E3B4F81ACFB7905573F24D6253D5D@MX15A.corp.emc.com>;, on
02/21/2013
   at 05:19 AM, "Moriarty, Kathleen" <kathleen.moriarty@emc.com>; said:

>Should we embed ARF and MARF RFC extensions to accommodate this need
>or should we look at updating RFC5901?

Note that RFC 5965 et al establish IANA registries; those are the
preferred mechanism for extensions. Where you need an extension beyond
what can be done with the existing registries, you should consider
establishing new registries to simplify future extensions beyond what
you initially devise.

-- 
     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)