On Tuesday, February 14, 2012 09:19:00 PM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > -----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?
If you change "..., though the means for doing so are not specified in this memo." to "as described above." I think that ties it together. The same text is just above in both, so it works either way. Scott K _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
