On 08/Feb/12 20:18, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> From: ietf.org On Behalf Of Alessandro Vesely
>
>> *Abstract*
>>
>> The abstract says "end users can use these methods", which may be
>> somewhat misleading. How about "and conceivably even end users", or
>> equivalent English text?
>
> How is it misleading?
Sorry, Murray, forget it. I thought (as said in 8.2) that reporting
is no MUA's business. Thinking twice, however, it is not bad if MUA
developers have a look at this I-D, even if most methods are not
suitable for them.
>> I'm unable to understand the first sentence of paragraph 3. Reports
>> have to be new messages irrespectively of whether the original message
>> was accepted or rejected.
>
> The focus isn't on new messages, it's on SMTP. If the delivery
> method isn't SMTP, then the rest of that paragraph doesn't apply
> because its loop-avoidance technique isn't applicable.
Well, that focus adds to the confusion, since the preceding sections
only do SMTP. You are not talking about failed authentication of
non-SMTP messages (doseta), are you?
It is the parenthesized "versus" that drives me astray. I tend to
understand the beginning of that paragraph as if it were just:
3. The envelope sender address of the report needs to be chosen so
that these reports will not generate mail loops, so as to avoid
amplification attacks, deliberate or otherwise.
What am I missing?
_______________________________________________
marf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
