>The issue is whether it's reasonable for an "abuse@" address to >accept only reports that are ARFs. I would suggest that such is a >violation of RFC2142, ...
Before there was ARF, I got plenty of responses saying that they ONLY take reports with the message pasted into the body of the message, or that they ONLY take reports with the message as an attachment, and so forth, so that bridge burned long ago and the ashes are cold. I agree that it's pretty lame to demand ARF, but it does sort of select for people who have some idea what they're doing. R's, John _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
