On Aug 3, 2011, at 6:33 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> What is the meaning of a list of non-addressed use cases? Possibly >> suggest that they are not worth being addressed in general? > > It's referring to a list of use cases that the ARF was not designed to > handle. There's no intent that I can see to state that those use cases > aren't interesting to handle.
Actually, what I meant was that draft-jdfalk-marf-as and draft-jdfalk-maawg-cfblbcp only fully address the complaint feedback loop use case. There are other cases that ARF can handle, such as spam traps or (maybe) virus/malware reports, which I'd think we should discuss in a separate AS or BCP. Either way, though, I think that bitching at a single ISP about their abuse@ policy is out of scope for any IETF document. If that practice becomes common, maybe a "considered harmful" draft could be appropriate. So far, though, there is one (1) example, which just happens to be a big ISP that some people love to hate. It would be inappropriate, unprofessional, and somewhat silly to try to use the IETF as a weapon against them. >> Hmm... >> that's quite strange, especially considering that everyone likes the >> monkey butter. > > That's a new one on me. What does it mean? http://www.jwz.org/gruntle/monkeybutter.html -- J.D. Falk the leading purveyor of industry counter-rhetoric solutions _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
