> 3. The Mailbox Provider SHOULD send reports to relevant parties who > have requested to receive such reports. The reports MUST be > formatted per [RFC5965], and transmitted as an email message > ([RFC5322]), typically using SMTP ([RFC5321]). The process > whereby such parties may request the reports is discussed in > Section 3.5 of [RFC6449]. > >Although I understad the MUST here in context, it could be misread out of >context by people trying to insist on ARF. Could we have some kind of "To >implement the recommendations of this draft, the reports MUST ..." or similar?
That's implicit in any standard. The 2119 language is relative to implementing what the document is about. > more severe filtering from the report generator. Thus, a report > generator sending unsolicited reports SHOULD ensure that a reply > to such a report can be received. >The SHOULD seems strong here. While I agree it's a nice idea, the odds of >this actually happening are vanishingly small in my opinion. Something >without a RFC 2119 keyword would be better here. I get dozens of responses to ARF reports every day, many from actual people. R's, John _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
