On Feb 1, 2012, at 11:30 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >> Scott Kitterman >> Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 12:30 PM >> To: Message Abuse Report Format working group >> Subject: Re: [marf] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-marf-as-05 >> >>> 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. > > Done in -06. > > I take it you are both otherwise happy with the AS draft as-is?
Not entirely. I think that encouraging people to send unsolicited, non-human-readable email to email addresses harvested from domain or IP registration addresses, or to role accounts intended to receive human readable email, isn't a good idea and we might want to spend more space on the problems with that. The discussion we have of that now varies between the rather vague, glossing over the operational impossibilities of actually doing what we're suggesting people do, through to the oddly specific. There've been enough minor changes that section 8 is significantly improved over earlier versions, but it's still rather weak. It seems more a grab bag of unrelated thoughts than good coverage of why and how and where you should send unsolicited email in ARF format. Most of those are good thoughts, but they're rather terse and without the context of why someone provided them I'm not sure they add up to a coherent narrative. My preference would be to focus on use of ARF format for solicited reports in this document, rip out section 8 altogether and concentrate on that issue more in a separate document that could provide more depth, more focus on the difficulties with unsolicited reports that this one glosses over, possibly combined with the work on advertising desire to receive machine-readable reports. Expanding section 8 into a deeper discussion in this document might work too. The rest of it looks fine, though, so if that doesn't happen I'd consider -06 OK. Cheers, Steve _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
