> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Alessandro Vesely > Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 8:21 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [marf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-marf-as-07.txt > > *Abstract* > > The abstract says "end users can use these methods", which may be > somewhat misleading. How about "and conceivably even end users", or > equivalent English text?
How is it misleading? > *Generating and Handling Unsolicited Abuse Reports* > > I'd suggest the leading paragraph be more similar to that of Section 9, > instead of: > > The following advice is offered for the case of reports that are not > solicited: > > For example: > > There are cases where no sending parties have requested reports, > possibly because they did not know how to apply, or didn't care. I think that says effectively the same thing. > *Generating Automatic Authentication Failure Reports* > > Barry's advice on numbering is missing. Added. > Paragraph 2 seems to be overly restrictive. IMHO, it suffices to say > that the report "MUST NOT be sent automatically". That way, a > generator can still produce its data for local debugging or manual > forwarding. OK. > I'm unable to understand the first sentence of paragraph 3. Reports > have to be new messages irrespectively of whether the original message > was accepted or rejected. The focus isn't on new messages, it's on SMTP. If the delivery method isn't SMTP, then the rest of that paragraph doesn't apply because its loop-avoidance technique isn't applicable. -MSK _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
