[feedback-report] Revised draft charter, call for participation -- Please comment

[J.D. Falk]

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
- hobbyists
- 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.

-- 
J.D. Falk
Return Path Inc
http://www.returnpath.net/