ietf
[Top] [All Lists]
<prev [Date] next>
[Advanced]
 <prev [Thread] next>

Re: [marf] Last Call: <draft-ietf-marf-spf-reporting-08.txt> (SPF Authentication Failure Reporting using the Abuse Report Format) to Proposed Standard

2012-03-01 17:25:12
from [SM] [Permanent Link] 
At 11:14 01-03-2012, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:

Would "ADMD" and an informative reference to RFC5598 be more appropriate?


  There exist cases in which the administrator of domain name employing
 [SPF] for announcing sending practices may want to know when messages are
  received via unauthorized routing.
A number of registries are using this wording already and there's been no objection to date. Do you have a better suggestion? 

It's not an objection.  The comments were labelled as editorial.

draft-nottingham-appsawg-happiana-00 contains some suggestions.

Regards,
-sm 
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
[More with this subject...]
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Previous by Date:  Re: Last Call: <draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt> (Allocation of an Associated Channel Code Point for Use by ITU-T Ethernet based OAM) to Informational RFC, John C Klensin
Next by Date:  RE: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard, Murray S. Kucherawy
Previous by Thread:  Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-marf-spf-reporting-08.txt> (SPF Authentication Failure Reporting using the Abuse Report Format) to Proposed Standard, Scott Kitterman
Next by Thread:  Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-marf-spf-reporting-08.txt> (SPF Authentication Failure Reporting using the Abuse Report Format) to Proposed Standard, Scott Kitterman
Indexes:  [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]