> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Alessandro Vesely > Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 2:07 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [marf] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-marf-as-05 > > > Less drastic suggestion, moving the discussion of unsolicited reports > > to it's own section, removing reference to Yahoo, mentioning that ARF > > reports can be crafted to be more text/plain friendly, adding a MUST > > allow unsubscribes, a few other minor tweaks and a moral at the end: > > What was the reference to Yahoo?
The stuff about a large service provider insisting that all abuse reports be ARF-formatted is a reference to Yahoo. > I'd add that sending unsolicited messages can be a way of initiating an > FBL. We already do say that later in the same section. > Advice that a message was delivered to a junk folder might be useful, > though. I think we won't get it even if we ask for it, so putting too > much emphasis on this point is worthless. However, perhaps it has to > be said that rejected messages must not be reported. I disagree, because that presumes a lot about what exactly "rejected" means. I think we're fine with the current text. > > + Additionally, a report generator MUST provide a way for > > + a report recipient to request no further reports be sent > > + to them and MAY provide a way for recipients to change > > + the address(es) reports about them are sent to. > > This latter part should go to a different paragraph. Perhaps near 12 > (replying to feedback). Replies may be mail- or web-based. It's enough to say "a way", I think. The method is unspecified, and that's fine. > > @@ -311,19 +324,19 @@ > > originating customer. > > 10. Published abuse mailbox addresses SHOULD NOT reject messages not > > in the ARF format, as generation of ARF messages can > > - occasionally be unavailable or not applicable. > > Paragraph 10, for receivers, should terminate here. Do you think the rest of what's there now is incorrect? > The rest of paragraph 10 and paragraph 11 (for senders) are confusing > and need additional rewording, IMHO. Please provide substitute text. > > @@ -354,7 +367,16 @@ > > [snip] > > - > > + 14. Handling unsolicited reports has a significant cost to the > > + receiver. Senders of unsolicited reports, especially those > > + sending large volumes of them mechanically, need to be aware > > + of that and do all they reasonably can to avoid sending > > + reports that cannot be used as a basis for action by the > > + recipient - whether that is due to the report being sent > > + about an incident that isn't abuse-related, it being sent to > > + an email address that can't take action on it, or due to the > > + content or format of the report being hard for the recipient > > + to read or use. > > Non-actionable reports could still be useful for collecting statistics, > whose evaluation may eventually result in a better sending. This is > especially true for spf- or dkim-reporting. I think this fits under "take action on it". > Should we say that the 3rd mime part of non-actionable reports should > be "text/rfc822-headers"? Why? -MSK _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
