On 01/Feb/12 21:29, John Levine wrote:
>> 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?
>
> That's implicit in any standard. The 2119 language is relative to
> implementing what the document is about.
In addition, the context where that snippet comes from is about a
closed transmission whose details were privately agreed upon by the
participating parties. That is, not only requiring ARF makes sense,
but also attaching definite semantics to specific fields of it.
The generic recommendation of not insisting on ARF is in bullet 10 of
Section 8:
10. Published abuse mailbox addresses SHOULD NOT reject messages not
in the ARF format, as generation of ARF messages can
occasionally be unavailable or not applicable. [...]
_______________________________________________
marf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
