[ietf-dkim] Re: draft-kucherawy-dkim-reporting-01 posted
nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de
Tue Dec 18 18:24:55 PST 2007
Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> I'd be fine with this becoming a WG document rather than an
> individual one, but I'm also happy to see it through myself
> if the WG isn't interested in supporting it at this time.
It's not yet obvious when SSP will be ready, and parts of it
including the word "Suspicious" are under heavy fire. What's
the state with ARF ? Waiting for years that the DNSBL draft
gets a Last Call (or whatever the next step is) I'm reluctant
to take the ARF publication for guaranteed.
Stupid question, what's the purpose of the r= in your draft ?
Why not simply take "abuse" and be done with it ? Some parts
of RFC 2142 are a bit odd, but "abuse" as a well known local
part for abuse reporting (= the AR in ARF ;-) is a good and
widely accepted idea. I even considered to collect evidence
that *this* idea in RFC 2142 should be promoted to DS.
More information about the ietf-dkim