On Fri 06/Apr/2012 11:20:35 +0200 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> From: Alessandro Vesely [mailto:[email protected]] >>> >>> 1. Rather than generating feedback reports themselves, MUAs SHOULD >>> make abuse reports back to their mailbox providers so that they >>> can generate and send ARF messages on behalf of end users. This >>> allows centralized processing and tracking of reports, and >>> provides training input to filtering systems. >> >> As long as "make abuse reports back" is clear, that may work. MUAs >> could use any of John's taxonomy techniques[1], I don't know if it >> could be acceptable to refer to that page... > > I'll note here that there's no standard signaling mechanism for use > between MUAs and ISPs to trigger reports.
Thanks. >> For a nit, the I-D uses the term "report generator". Its meaning is >> obvious. However, RFC 6449 uses "Feedback Provider" instead. Would >> the addition of a definition in Section 2 ease such references? E.g. >> something like so: >> [...] > > Actually changing "report generator" to "Feedback Provider" is a > better idea because it makes the two documents even more consistent > with each other. So I'll do that as well. Do you mean to extend Feedback Provider to also cover auth failures? _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
