[feedback-report] Revised draft charter, call for participation -- Please comment
jdfalk-lists at cybernothing.org
Mon Sep 28 08:41:58 PDT 2009
Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> I would replace "ISPs" with the more specific "mailbox providers".
ARF is generated by (or on behalf of) mailbox providers, and then consumed
by (or on behalf of) a fairly wide variety of email senders, including:
- fellow mailbox providers
- access providers ranging from dialup to backbones
- commercial senders
- non-commercial senders
- educational institutions
- spammers (I'm not saying it's right, just saying it happens)
There are many millions of ARF messages transferred every day, and once
we've got the WG started I'll propose editing the draft to indicate this.
(I'll also get a more accurate estimate.)
> The user should be able to write or modify the human readable part
> of the report. I envisage the MUA button as popping up a dialog
> asking such questions as
Vanishingly few (if any) of the ARF messages transferred today include any
text supplied by the end user who initiated the complaint. Few ARF messages
are processed by humans at any stage.
But more importantly, this list of questions doesn't seem appropriate for a
standards project. The developer of a particular tool may wish to include
them, and that's fine -- every MUA is different -- but it isn't (and
shouldn't be) required by an RFC.
Return Path Inc
More information about the abuse-feedback-report