> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Steve > Atkins > Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 9:28 PM > To: Message Abuse Report Format working group > Subject: Re: [marf] FW: Feedback on: ARF feedback type Virus/_report subdomain > > From experience, many FBL handlers are behind the primary corporate MX. > Often configured to avoid filters. Sometimes not. Sometimes configured > to do so until the MX (which is not under control of the people > operating the FBL eater) is upgraded or outsourced. > > If FBL messages contain hostile content they're fairly likely to be > silently dropped or quarantined at a small fraction of recipients > today. That fraction would probably increase if more organizations than > the current selection (ESPs and some ISPs) start to take advantage of > them - which is something I'd really like to happen in the case of FBLs > based on detection of malware emission.
Does that mean you feel this justifies a change to the base draft? _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
