[feedback-report] The limits of ARF, and INCH
John R. Levine
johnl at iecc.com
Mon Jul 27 10:07:47 PDT 2009
> The ARF Draft itself could be changed. Especially part 4-d. We could
> leave it like it is for email abuse and add a non email attachment for
> logfiles and other contents. I see no problem with that.
Don't be silly. Every current bit of software that reads ARF reports
expects to find the current three parts, text, formatted text, and
message. If you send something different, it doesn't matter whether you
call it ARF, it won't be ARF because it won't interoperate with existing
ARF software. For example, nearly all of the ARF reports I get are in
fact list removal requests, so my ARF reader mostly looks at the copy of
the message to get the details of who to remove from what list, and pays
little attention to the formatted report part.
> But if I interpret the feedback on this list right, I'm not dogmatic
> enough, more pragmatic and more solution driven.
I think you'll find we're quite pragmatic, but we also have a lot of
experience with attempts to overload message formats, which tells us it's
a bad idea.
We all agree that it would be nice to have a way to report other kinds of
abuse that aren't tied to a single e-mail message, but ARF isn't it.
More information about the abuse-feedback-report