Steve Atkins <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Feb 1, 2012, at 12:14 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > >> On Tuesday, January 31, 2012 04:23:33 PM Barry Leiba wrote: >>> I am re-posting this without the extra recipients; please reply to >>> THIS message, and NOT to that other one. We can discuss later who, >>> exactly, should get the truncheon treatment here....... >>> --- >>> >>> Here begins a last call for the MARF working group on the subject >>> document, detailed below. Please make any comments you have on this >>> version no later than 10 Feb 2012. That's a week and a half, which >>> should be enough for this active and vocal group, wot? Please do >not >>> wait until the last minute, and especially do not wait until the >>> document goes to the IESG. You will be beaten with a rubber >>> truncheon. >> >> It looks good to me. Just a couple of comments: >> >> 3. The Mailbox Provider SHOULD send reports to relevant parties >who >> have requested to receive such reports. The reports MUST be >> formatted per [RFC5965], and transmitted as an email message >> ([RFC5322]), typically using SMTP ([RFC5321]). The process >> whereby such parties may request the reports is discussed in >> Section 3.5 of [RFC6449]. >> >> Although I understad the MUST here in context, it could be misread >out of >> context by people trying to insist on ARF. Could we have some kind >of "To >> implement the recommendations of this draft, the reports MUST ..." or >similar? >> >> 12. Although [RFC6449] suggests that replying to feedback is not >> useful, in the case of receipt of ARF reports where no >feedback >> arrangement has been established, a reply might be desirable >to >> indicate that the complaint will result in action, heading off >> more severe filtering from the report generator. Thus, a >report >> generator sending unsolicited reports SHOULD ensure that a >reply >> to such a report can be received. Where an unsolicited report >> results in the establishment of contact with a responsible and >> responsive party, this can be saved for future complaint >> handling and possible establishment of a formal (solicited) >> feedback arrangement. See Section 3.5 of [RFC6449] for a >> discussion of establishment of feedback arrangements. >> >> The SHOULD seems strong here. While I agree it's a nice idea, the >odds of >> this actually happening are vanishingly small in my opinion. >Something >> without a RFC 2119 keyword would be better here. > >Unsolicited reports sent from an undeliverable address aren't terribly >useful, as you can't ask the sender for additional context (data that's >already there for FBLs). They're also more likely to be discarded or >blocked. > >I think the SHOULD is a reasonable level of strength (though I >wouldn't object to MUST). That's a much better rationale. The draft should leave the SHOULD and add that. Scott K _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
