Jeff Macdonald wrote:
How detailed does such report have to be?
Is that a serious question ? You could mention that v=spf1 is
supposed to work with HELO or MAIL FROM, and that the correct
result for your mail should be xxx instead of their yyy.
Don't make it too long - if you send it to abuse@ they won't
know what you're talking about. A Cc: iesg is another issue:
So far (state yesterday) they haven't approved this unethical
"experiment". As soon as they did you can formulate it as an
appeal against this approval. Before they do it you can ask
them to not approve draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 because it's
incompatible with v=pf1 (maybe adding your bounce or whatever
it is as evidence, stating why result xxx should not be yyy).
Do I need to quote RFC numbers?
No, you'd talk about v=spf1 (draft-schlitt) vs. draft-lyon or
however you see this from your POV. When they approve all
drafts they won't get an RfC number immediately. They are
sent to the RfC-editor who checks it again (formally) and
attaches numbers. So there are some months (maybe) while
the drafts are already approved but have yet no RfC numbers.
They are not interested in your draft-quoting skills. They
just need to know that they screwed up badly, if that's what
they did, so far they only intend it.
Inform the public if you have good ideas how to do this, e.g.
send a petition to the relevant ethics commission, there are
tons of articles explaining the problem from all sides. Bye