> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Scott > Kitterman > Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 9:11 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [marf] Reorganizing the AS > > I did notice (this is common to both versions) in the authentication > failure report section: > > 1. Selection of the recipient(s) for reports that are automatically > generated MUST be done based on data provided by the report > recipient, and MUST NOT be done heuristically. Therefore these > reports are always solicited, though the means for doing so are > not specified in this memo. > > Is there a reason not to just reference the DKIM and SPF drafts that > define how to select the reporting address? It seems to me that would > be a lot clearer.
This appears two paragraphs earlier (in the reorganized version at least): There are some cases where report generation is caused by automation rather than user request. A specific example of this is reporting, using the ARF format (or extensions to it), of messages that fail particular message authentication checks. Examples of this include [I-D.IETF-MARF-DKIM-REPORTING] and [I-D.IETF-MARF-SPF-REPORTING]. The considerations presented below apply in those cases. So the selection mechanism is specific to the reporting scheme, and we point off to the two we're developing right now. That ties it together for me. What do you think? -MSK _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
