In article <CAL0qLwZxwkcJi7Ej0fU5s8k-xZ=n_4fa0cvvvf05ytqpc3n...@mail.gmail.com>, Murray S. Kucherawy <[email protected]> wrote: >The issue with MARF inside IODEF is that the receiver needs to know that >the payload being provided inside an EmailMessage element is itself an ARF >report, and not the message that caused the report in the first place. You >certainly could crack open the EmailMessage content and see if conforms to >the ARF specification to tell which kind of report you've gotten, but that >seems inelegant.
You also couldn't recognize a complaint about a misdirected ARF report. That sort of overloading of fields usually leads to sadness and regret. >I suppose then another option is an extension element that indicates you've >received an ARF payload rather than the actual offending message. That could do it. Or if you're going to do that, crack apart the ARF report, put the feedback-report part in the new element, and the message in the message element. R's, John _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
