On 08/Feb/12 17:56, Steve Atkins wrote: > On Feb 8, 2012, at 8:29 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > >> 8.1 talks about sending unsolicited abuse reports. > > "Such criteria might include direct complaint > submissions from MUAs, reports triggered by mail sent to "spam > trap" or "honeypot" addresses, reports of authentication > failures, and virus reports." > > That's talking about "reports of authentication failure".
Mistake? > s/reports of authentication failures,// is the obvious fix. The whole snippet quoted above seems to be somewhat misplaced, as those are all cases of "mechanical reports" that the concluding sentence of that paragraph discourages. >>> 8.6 implies that the d= domain is always a good place to send an >>> unsolicited report if it leads to a deliverable email address. Is >>> that what we mean to say? >> >> No. A "reasonable candidate" implies a few attempts can be done. > > I'm not sure what you mean there. Even if the d= domain is a reasonable candidate, one should stop sending reports if any of the following is determined to be true: * abuse@domain is undeliverable, * nobody acknowledges the reports (paragraph 13), or * the recipients opt-out (paragraph 5). > 8.6 fairly strongly implies that the only reason that a DKIM d= might > not be an appropriate place to notify is if the d= is being used to > distinguish reputation streams. That's only one of several reasons > it may not be a reasonable candidate. Abusive parties (paragraph 14) make another class of unreasonable candidates. _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
