Subject: [marf] Comments on draft-jdfalk-marf-as-00

From: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 13:19:34 -0400

There should be some discussion of MARF reports initiated from generic
MUA's rather than MUA's provided by the MSA operator.

There should be a statement that MARF is not meant to replace plain
text reports to abuse and postmaster, but rather is an additional
option.

-- 
     Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
     Atid/2        <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)

---

From: Alessandro Vesely <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 20:34:40 +0200

> MUA's rather than MUA's provided by the MSA operator.

I think you mean "MUA's provided by the _Mailbox Provider_ operator",
that is to say, the ones sporting its TiS button.  If not, please clarify.

> text reports to abuse and postmaster, but rather is an additional

This topic was touched in "Misuse of ARF by spam-friendly ISPs"
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf/current/msg01223.html

JD suggested a separate BCP to discuss spam reporting from general
public.  Murray said he'd be fine with that.  It is still not clear
whether that BCP would be in this WG; and whether in such case the
marf-as would mention it, or vice-versa it should also mention FBLs,
so as to provide an overview of ARF usage.

---

From: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 17:07:49 -0400

In <[email-masked]>, on 08/25/2011

>I think you mean "MUA's provided by the _Mailbox Provider_ operator",

Well, I suppose that in theory you could have split servers operated
by different organization, but normally the MSA and MX are under
common control, along with any POP3 or IMAP4 servers involved. IAC, I
would expect the report to go via the MSA rather than the MX.