> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Alessandro Vesely > Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 1:57 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [marf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-marf-as-07.txt > > > ISP can police his own network without external help, so it's not a > > useful distinction in any case. > > The amount of support that ISPs may want to give to abuse reporting is > unknown at this time. Requiring them to proactively policing abusive > use of domain names in outgoing mail is probably not an option, also > because that might interfere with contractual habits (more than > explicit complaints from third parties.)
That's true, but I don't think it's something MARF needs to consider. These are really operational choices that have nothing to do (directly) with ARF generation or acceptance. Or am I missing something? > Advice that abuse-mailboxes shouldn't be spam-filtered is spread > throughout several papers. That the domain part of abuse-mailboxes > should not be SPF-protected would be a new, somewhat obscure > requirement, that is not going to improve SPF adoption. If you're proposing a text change about whether or not email addresses that lead to abuse inboxes SHOULD NOT be spam-filtered, I've lost track of it. Can you point me to it? -MSK _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
