On Saturday, February 04, 2012 10:07:19 PM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > > Shmuel Metz Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 3:26 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [marf] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-marf-as-05 > > > > >Probably, yes - while on the modern net it would probably make much > > >more sense to centralize most the processing and decision making, > > > > I agree, but in the short run there will continue to be providers that > > don't provide that function. > > > > >I think anyone developing an MUA to do that sort of thing would either > > >deeply understand this document and read it from an appropriate > > >perspective, or not understand it and need to be restrained from doing > > >anything along these lines. > > > > The refusal of, e.g., yahoo, to accept plain text complaints provides > > an incentive for MUA authors to write such tools. Given the number of > > e-mail clients that are broken in one way or another, I'd rather see > > some guidance in an RFC before the avalanche starts. Restraining the > > MUA authors is not feasible. > > What do others think about this point? Given the number of direct > complaints John, Yakov and I got from Yahoo members when Yahoo decided to > accept only ARF reports, it seems like we might be able to say we have > experience that this creates a big problem for a lot of people. And it's > true that software to generate ARFs will start appearing, if it hasn't > already. > > That said, I don't think we need to talk specifically about MUAs sending > abuse reports. It seems to me any advice we have for them is the same as > the advice we're already giving to report generators. Why would it be any > different?
I don't think it would be different. Scott K _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
