On 28/Jun/11 15:42, Scott Kitterman wrote: > On Tuesday, June 28, 2011 09:35:07 AM [email protected] wrote: > ... >> Title : SPF Authentication Failure Reporting using the Abuse >> Report Format Author(s) : Scott Kitterman > ... > > This is the first draft of the split out document. Please review and let me > know how it can be improved.
I have some comments on both I-Ds. Actually, there should be three I-Ds, so my comments perhaps are about the missing one. One point is the reference to [I-D.MARF-DKIM-REPORTING]. Shouldn't that refer to the missing I-D, i.e. RFCxxxx "Abuse Report Format (ARF) Extensions for Authentication Failure Reporting" instead? I liked the idea of splitting the documents, but would now recommend factoring some text where possible. A second point is the idea of a "conditional" report. That may mean, e.g., only send me an SPF-failure report if you verified a DKIM signature for the same domain name. By enabling reporting, one will likely receive an inordinate amount of spam generated notifications: it will be useful to check mail settings of a new domain, but will turned off after a short time. Conditional reporting, instead, can be kept permanently enabled. What do you think? Third point, an example of a complete report would be appreciated. _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
