Re: [feedback-report] Email::ARF::Report, etc

Ricardo SIGNES <rjbs-arf@lists.manxome.org> Wed, 21 March 2007 19:40 UTC

Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 15:40:07 -0400
From: Ricardo SIGNES <rjbs-arf@lists.manxome.org>
To: abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org
Subject: Re: [feedback-report] Email::ARF::Report, etc
Message-ID: <20070321194007.GA4061@zodiac.codesimply.com>
References: <20070321023336.GA8532@zodiac.codesimply.com> <e8db4f100703211233i1782d42dq512f2389c707882e@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <e8db4f100703211233i1782d42dq512f2389c707882e@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)
Precedence: list

* Damon Sauer <qvantvs@gmail.com> [2007-03-21T15:33:34]
> Why not just use: "Content-Type: multipart/digest;" (ref=
> http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc1341/7_2_Multipart.html )
> 
> It defaults the entire message to: message/rfc22

It looks to me like this is a suggestion for the ARF spec, rather than for
Email::ARF.  Is that correct?

I haven't been part of the spec design or discussion, so I'm just implementing
what the draft says.

My first reaction is that more things already know how to deal with a normal
multipart type than with the digest type, which is less common.  Producers
would probably find that they had to specify that the content type is
message/rfc822, thus eliminating that benefit.  Further, the digest type is
generally supposed to indicate a cluster of messages, not a cluster of messages
all describing one datum.

-- 
rjbs

Re: [feedback-report] Email::ARF::Report, etc Ricardo SIGNES
Re: [feedback-report] Email::ARF::Report, etc Ricardo SIGNES
Re: [feedback-report] Email::ARF::Report, etc Damon Sauer
Re: [feedback-report] Email::ARF::Report, etc Steve Atkins
Re: [feedback-report] Email::ARF::Report, etc Ricardo SIGNES
[feedback-report] Email::ARF::Report, etc Ricardo SIGNES