IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [marf] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-marf-as-05

Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <shmuel+mail-abuse-feedback-report@patriot.net> Mon, 06 February 2012 16:11 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 BD10821F8545 for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 08:11:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.18
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.18 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.419, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 KQ3b6ykNL7+Q for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 08:10:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.patriot.net (smtp.patriot.net [209.249.176.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F23E321F847E for <marf@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 08:10:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ECS60015111 (unknown [69.72.27.157]) (Authenticated sender: shmuel@patriot.net) by smtp.patriot.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D015CF5808A for <marf@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 10:56:06 -0500 (EST)
From: Shmuel Metz <shmuel+mail-abuse-feedback-report@patriot.net>
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 09:13:01 -0500
To: marf@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C9A7DBC7@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.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: <20120206155606.D015CF5808A@smtp.patriot.net>
Subject: Re: [marf] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-marf-as-05
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: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 16:11:15 -0000

In
<F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C9A7DBC7@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>,
on 02/04/2012
   at 09:01 PM, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com> said:

>Agree with the "some".

I notice "some" that it isn't in draft-ietf-marf-as-06.txt; is that
deliberate or inadvertent?

8.  Generating and Handling Unsolicited Reports

   13.  Experience suggests use of ARF is advisable in most contexts.
        Automated recipient systems can handle abuse reports sent in
ARF
        format at least as well as any other format such as plain
text,
        with or without a copy of the message attached.  That holds
even
        for systems that did not request ARF format reports, provided
        that reports are generated with use by recipients not using
        automated ARF parsing in mind.  Anyone sending unsolicited
        reports in ARF format can legitimately presume that recipients

-- 
     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)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email