On 24/Aug/11 19:19, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote: > There should be some discussion of MARF reports initiated from generic > MUA's rather than MUA's provided by the MSA operator.
I think you mean "MUA's provided by the _Mailbox Provider_ operator", that is to say, the ones sporting its TiS button. If not, please clarify. > There should be a statement that MARF is not meant to replace plain > text reports to abuse and postmaster, but rather is an additional > option. This topic was touched in "Misuse of ARF by spam-friendly ISPs" http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf/current/msg01223.html JD suggested a separate BCP to discuss spam reporting from general public. Murray said he'd be fine with that. It is still not clear whether that BCP would be in this WG; and whether in such case the marf-as would mention it, or vice-versa it should also mention FBLs, so as to provide an overview of ARF usage. _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
