On 23/Dec/11 19:04, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
> In <[email protected]>, on 12/23/2011
> at 05:47 PM, Alessandro Vesely <[email protected]> said:
>
>> Isn't it to inform mail operators about email abuse originating from
>> their networks?
>
> The relevant test is "this format is intended specifically for
> communications among providers regarding email abuse and related
> issues, and SHOULD NOT be used for other reports." That would seem to
> exclude using it for an abuse report from the recipient rather than
> from his provider.
Hm... the second bullet clarifies that ESPs are targets rather than
senders of reports. Perhaps, s/among/involving/ would yield a better
wording if "providers" also includes mailbox providers. In any case,
the requirement level ("SHOULD NOT") seems to be referred to "email
abuse and related issues" --irrespectively of the original intention.
In that sense, I don't think that utilizing ARF for user-to-provider
reporting would violate RFC 5965.
Note that Section 2 of reporting-discovery has a similar definition.
_______________________________________________
marf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
