On 13/Feb/12 04:42, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>
> The diff is here: http://www.blackops.org/~msk/marf-as.html
>
> Please review it and comment as soon as possible. This is our last
> batch of work before Barry can write up his shepherding document and
> move it along to the IESG.
That oversimplifies the I-D. Except for a few excisions, version -08
looks sounder and clearer.
In the rest of this message, I paste all the snippets of text that,
IMHO, can be removed from Section 8 of version -08 with no substantial
loss:
The following advice is offered for the case of reports that are not
solicited:
(These
applications might be described in future IETF documents.)
Systems SHOULD NOT report all mail sent from a particular sender
merely because some of it is determined to be abusive.
since, because of their subjective nature, they are
unlikely to provide a basis for the recipient to take action
6. Similarly, if a report generator applies SPF to arriving
messages, and that evaluation produced something other than a
"Pass", "None" or "Neutral" result, a report addressed to the
RFC5321.MailFrom domain SHOULD NOT be generated as it is
probably a forgery and thus not actionable. A valid exception
would be specific knowledge that the SPF result is not
definitive for that domain under those circumstances (e.g., a
message that is also DKIM-signed by the same domain, and that
signature validates).
However, they MAY
take advantage of the standardized parts of the ARF format to
automate processing.
_______________________________________________
marf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
