On Aug 3, 2011, at 11:18 AM, John Levine wrote: >> 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. Not really, it's selecting for people who can write code that works with their mail client and conforms to a standard. It doesn't select for people who can send intelligent, useful reports. I can send a perfectly competent abuse report, but I don't have the skills to code a ARF report generator. laura -- Laura Atkins Word to the Wise "The Deliverability Experts!" Direct: 650 678-3454 Fax: 650 249-1909 AIM: wttwlaura YIM: wttw_laura Delivery blog: <http://blog.wordtothewise.com/> _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
