sm at resistor.net
Thu Jan 29 07:22:19 PST 2009
At 23:16 28-01-2009, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>It could perhaps be worded better, but you can flip it around to get
> To provide a method for recipients to advise providers that
> they disagree with the provider's certifications or other
> assertions about the message.
To provide feedback to third parties affixing assertions about the message.
>It's my understanding that Standards Track is appropriate because
>the draft contains a specification that is used across
>administrative boundaries. Thus, for example, SMTP is standards
>track, but LMTP doesn't need to be.
In my opinion, the document is appropriate for the Standards
Track. The Security Considerations section may require some more
work. One of the considerations for a Standards Track document is
that it requires the consensus of the IETF community. That shouldn't
be a problem if this draft is non-controversial. I suggest narrowing
down the specifications to the feedback report format and having the
DKIM extension in a separate document .
At 02:22 29-01-2009, John R. Levine wrote:
>The example we had in mind is VBR, in which certifiers can say they
>only vouch for, e.g. transactional mail, and senders can assert what
>kind each message is.
Please see whether the text I suggested covers that example.
More information about the abuse-feedback-report