Hi Adrian, > -----Original Message----- > From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 10:07 AM > To: The IESG > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Adrian Farrel's No Objection on draft-ietf-marf-as-15: (with > COMMENT) > > Adrian Farrel has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-marf-as-15: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss- > criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Forgive me, but doesn't section 8.2 say that forged abuse reports > constitue a real problem and the two mechanisms available to protect > against them may result in genuine abuse reports being discarded?
Yes to the first point. The second point is true of all email, not just abuse reports; if the signer's infrastructure is causing signatures to break, there's no reason to trust the reports even though they bear some kind of signature. The same goes for, say, a message from your bank that's signed but the signature fails to validate. > Is the message here "chosse which you think might be the least worse > problem" or is it "you should use DKIM and SPF, but be aware that you > may lose some genuine reports"? It's "You should use DKIM and/or SPF, but make sure they're working properly if you want to reap the benefits." > I would have liked some clarification as to which message is being > sent. That section is only talking about reports. Which part is unclear? -MSK _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
