On Tuesday, February 14, 2012 04:01:35 PM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> As I mentioned earlier, I've done some reorganizing of the content in the
> AS. The curret result of my work is here:
>
> http://www.blackops.org/~msk/draft-ietf-marf-as.txt
>
> Note: None of the content of the -08 version has been removed here, but a
> lot of it has been rearranged. A test-drive of this on a couple of people
> here before I brought it to the list was quite successful, so now I'm
> showing it to the group.
>
> Is this a more reasonable starting place for moving forward, or do we want
> to stick with the -08 version? If we like it, I'll post it as -09, and
> then we can talk about another pass of work on it and perhaps a second
> WGLC. If not, we'll do that on -08.
It doesn't seem to me to be significantly better or worse, so I'll take either
one.
I did notice (this is common to both versions) in the authentication failure
report section:
1. Selection of the recipient(s) for reports that are automatically
generated MUST be done based on data provided by the report
recipient, and MUST NOT be done heuristically. Therefore these
reports are always solicited, though the means for doing so are
not specified in this memo.
Is there a reason not to just reference the DKIM and SPF drafts that define how
to select the reporting address? It seems to me that would be a lot clearer.
Scott K
_______________________________________________
marf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
