Received: from nz-out-0102.google.com (nz-out-0102.google.com [64.233.162.205]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k5MJwM2Z020575 for <abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org>; Thu, 22 Jun 2006 12:58:22 -0700
Received: by nz-out-0102.google.com with SMTP id 8so538444nzo for <abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org>; Thu, 22 Jun 2006 12:57:52 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type; b=hDyp8NPGRj8cJd9vjJWAHNnPxoX9/Cf4QExmTVM8weEbKpp0+/fT69xxeL0xQGRG1Bs5lXsFQwtcw64O19mVaxKLKqpNfcVB9cJKz0qyYrPYBIlHfOPClXNLbpQQkxs9VT5v73oOH7bRmkuxdIGoks/CJvIK3WXZNNYs9T1rzbA=
Received: by 10.65.163.4 with SMTP id q4mr2319315qbo; Thu, 22 Jun 2006 12:57:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.65.61.15 with HTTP; Thu, 22 Jun 2006 12:57:48 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <e8db4f100606221257q48f4d4c2qe1e2e1a32b9aae58@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 15:57:48 -0400
From: "Damon Sauer" <qvantvs@gmail.com>
To: abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;  boundary="----=_Part_8364_21113578.1151006268275"
X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information
X-Songbird: Clean
X-Songbird-From: qvantvs@gmail.com
Subject: [feedback-report] ARF and MIME attachments
X-BeenThere: abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Public forum for discussion on the feedback-report draft <abuse-feedback-report.mipassoc.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mipassoc.org/mailman/listinfo/abuse-feedback-report>,  <mailto:abuse-feedback-report-request@mipassoc.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/abuse-feedback-report>
List-Post: <mailto:abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org>
List-Help: <mailto:abuse-feedback-report-request@mipassoc.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://mipassoc.org/mailman/listinfo/abuse-feedback-report>,  <mailto:abuse-feedback-report-request@mipassoc.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 19:58:24 -0000

------=_Part_8364_21113578.1151006268275
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Hi all! Sorry I'm late! (nods to my friends and handshakes all around)

I have been reading the archives as quickly as I can and noticed the latest
issue was over MIME.

I can understand both sides of the argument and I agree that some company
that shall remain nameless really did us a disservice by trying to render
EVERYTHING in an envelope even if it was not supposed to. </soapbox>

Why not just use: "Content-Type: multipart/digest;" (ref=
http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc1341/7_2_Multipart.html )

It defaults the entire message to: message/rfc22


You can put the different parts of the complaint into their own capsule for
people reading with a MIME enabled reader - there by rendering it 'safe'...
and it would also follow a nice format for automated/programmatic
readers/scripts to parse.

Just a thought....

Regards,
Damon Sauer

------=_Part_8364_21113578.1151006268275
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

<div>Hi all! Sorry I'm late! (nods to my friends and handshakes all around)</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>I have been reading the archives as quickly as I can and noticed the latest issue was over MIME.</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>I can understand both sides of the argument and I agree that some company that shall remain nameless really did us a disservice by trying to render EVERYTHING in an envelope even if it was not supposed to. &lt;/soapbox&gt;
</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>Why not just use: &quot;Content-Type: multipart/digest;&quot; (ref= <a href="http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc1341/7_2_Multipart.html">http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc1341/7_2_Multipart.html</a>&nbsp;)</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>It defaults the entire message to: message/rfc22</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>You can put the different parts of the complaint into their own capsule for people reading with a MIME enabled reader - there by rendering it 'safe'... and it would also follow a nice format for automated/programmatic readers/scripts to parse.
</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>Just a thought....</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>Regards,</div>
<div>Damon Sauer</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>

------=_Part_8364_21113578.1151006268275--


Received: from backbone.schlitt.net (schlitt.net [67.52.51.34]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k5K4LZIM030966 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org>; Mon, 19 Jun 2006 21:21:36 -0700
Received: from wayne by backbone.schlitt.net with local (Exim 4.52) id 1FsXjT-0004DJ-PD for abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org; Mon, 19 Jun 2006 23:21:05 -0500
From: wayne <wayne@schlitt.net>
To: abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 23:20:54 -0500
Message-ID: <x4odwo5uft.fsf@footbone.schlitt.net>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) XEmacs/21.4.17 (linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: <locally generated>
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: wayne@schlitt.net
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.4 (2005-06-05) on  backbone.schlitt.net
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.7 required=4.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00, SUBJ_HAS_UNIQ_ID autolearn=ham version=3.0.4
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 (built Thu, 03 Mar 2005 10:44:12 +0100)
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on backbone.schlitt.net)
X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information
X-Songbird: Clean
X-Songbird-From: wayne@schlitt.net
Subject: [feedback-report] comments on draft-shafranovich-feedback-report-01
X-BeenThere: abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Public forum for discussion on the feedback-report draft <abuse-feedback-report.mipassoc.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mipassoc.org/mailman/listinfo/abuse-feedback-report>,  <mailto:abuse-feedback-report-request@mipassoc.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/abuse-feedback-report>
List-Post: <mailto:abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org>
List-Help: <mailto:abuse-feedback-report-request@mipassoc.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://mipassoc.org/mailman/listinfo/abuse-feedback-report>,  <mailto:abuse-feedback-report-request@mipassoc.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 04:21:41 -0000

Hi everyone

Yesterday, I sent an email to Yakov about this draft, and as somewhat
of a result, I've stumbled across this mailing list.  I haven't heard
back from Yakov yet, but I figured I would resend my comments to this
list.

As I mentioned in my first sentence to Yakov, I'm not involved with
abuse desk issues so I'll probably stay out of most of these
discussions.  I also think that my comments about the
authenticated-results header are probably best dealt with on
mail-vet-discuss list, so I will make a post there with a more
thought-out message.  (For example, I see that there *is* a new I-D
for this header and many comments have already been addressed.)

[note: I edited this slightly for spelling, it is not identical to
what Yakov received]


--- cut here ---


Hi Yakov!

Not being involved with abuse desk issues, I've not followed the
work on having a common feedback report format much.  I stumbled
across a fairly recent reference to it today, and decided to see how
things were going.  (See
http://www.politechbot.com/2006/04/15/debate-over-dearaolcom/ )

I wrote up the following two comments on your draft before I noticed
that the draft had actually expired.  Before I continue reviewing it,
I would like to know if this still an active project.  Are you
interested in comments on it?  Is there a newer version I should
review instead?


In section 5.3, you mention the Authentication-Results [header].  In my
opinion, using this header is not a good idea.  I really like [the] theory
of using one common header for all the email authentication systems,
but in practice, I don't think it will work well.

We did not decide to use it for the SPF RFC and I'm pretty sure that
the DKIM folks have decided not to use it either.  There are two major
reasons, which I present both to the SPF folks and to the DKIM folks.

First off, when the draft was last reviewed by various IETF lists,
there were *many* problems pointed out, [both] in format and in
substance.  Worse, the draft had expired and did not look like it
would be updated any time soon.  This was a killer for SPF since we
were very far along on the RFC process and didn't want to be stuck
waiting on this draft as a dependency.

Secondly, and in my opinion, probably more serious is that it tries to
unify the authentication results that really aren't semantically the
same.  What it means for an SPF "PASS" is different from a DKIM
"PASS", although they are fairly close.  There is a much larger
difference between what it means for an SPF "FAIL" and a DKIM "FAIL".
DKIM signatures can fail in many ways, either due to corruption during
transmission, expired keys, attempts at forged signatures, the
dissallowance of third party signing, and probably a few other
reasons.

Trying to create a common authentication result header is really not
that different than trying to create a spam filter result header.  It
would be neat if you really could boil everything down to a common,
interchangable result, but in practice a spammassassin result is going
to have different semantics than a postini result.



Also in section 5.3, you reference RFC1035 section 2.31 as the format
of the domain name in the Reported-Domain: header.  This definition is
out of date and you should probably reference RFC3696 instead.  The
SPF RFC (RFC4408) has some ABNF for the TLD, but I think the USEFOR
drafts have a more complete set of ANBF that matches RFC3696.

--- cut here ---


-wayne


Received: from a.mail.sonic.net (a.mail.sonic.net [64.142.16.245]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k54KaPvr006061 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org>; Sun, 4 Jun 2006 13:36:25 -0700
Received: from [192.168.2.11] (64-142-13-68.dsl.static.sonic.net [64.142.13.68]) (authenticated bits=0) by a.mail.sonic.net (8.13.6/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k54KZp8p012493 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO); Sun, 4 Jun 2006 13:35:51 -0700
Subject: Re: [feedback-report] ARF and MIME attachments
From: Douglas Otis <dotis@mail-abuse.org>
To: Matthew Elvey <matthew@elvey.com>
In-Reply-To: <1149400913.26925.262994056@webmail.messagingengine.com>
References: <1149400913.26925.262994056@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 13:35:49 -0700
Message-Id: <1149453349.31940.23.camel@bash.adsl-64-142-13-68>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3 (2.2.3-4.fc4) 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information
X-Songbird: Clean
X-Songbird-From: dotis@mail-abuse.org
Cc: abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org
X-BeenThere: abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Public forum for discussion on the feedback-report draft <abuse-feedback-report.mipassoc.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mipassoc.org/mailman/listinfo/abuse-feedback-report>,  <mailto:abuse-feedback-report-request@mipassoc.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/abuse-feedback-report>
List-Post: <mailto:abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org>
List-Help: <mailto:abuse-feedback-report-request@mipassoc.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://mipassoc.org/mailman/listinfo/abuse-feedback-report>,  <mailto:abuse-feedback-report-request@mipassoc.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 20:36:30 -0000

On Sat, 2006-06-03 at 23:01 -0700, Matthew Elvey wrote:

> Whether the advice is sound or not, it's true that it is common and
> widely taken advice to refuse email containing MIME attachments.

While this may be good advice for general users that utilize
applications executing message content, the abuse@ account should not
fall into this category.  The ARF proposal does not require that the
abuse@ mailbox only accept this format, but tools being generated make
this format compliance easier.  Manually inserted messages are more
difficult to process because of the resulting broken structure.

The abuse@ mailbox should not execute message script or code related
content.  Even without MIME, HTML formatted text messages might
represent a risk.  A service provider must read the abuse@, but should
do so with a highly secure reader.  Do you think MIME represents a
serious threat, with respect to reading the text content?  At least ARF
information is exchanged as simple text.

-Doug




Received: from mail.skylist.com (mail.skylist.net [69.56.15.206]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k54JAu37025329 for <abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org>; Sun, 4 Jun 2006 12:10:56 -0700
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.64 (2004-01-11) on mail.skylist.net
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no version=2.64
X-Spam-Level: 
X-TFF-CGPSA-Version: 1.3.2
X-TFF-CGPSA-Filter: Scanned
Received: from [66.25.151.20] (HELO [192.168.1.102]) by mail.skylist.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3) with ESMTP id 56696522 for abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org; Sun, 04 Jun 2006 12:45:06 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v750)
In-Reply-To: <059B572D-C109-4359-AB9D-E14A8FB2364E@word-to-the-wise.com>
References: <2406C6A9-AEB8-4D21-8E8E-62BF482D36FE@blighty.com> <059B572D-C109-4359-AB9D-E14A8FB2364E@word-to-the-wise.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <5E86E1CB-B4C3-4620-9EE4-27F1AF3CCB96@skylist.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Joshua Baer <josh@skylist.com>
Subject: Re: [feedback-report] ARF and MIME attachments
Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 12:45:06 -0500
To: abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.750)
X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information
X-Songbird: Clean
X-Songbird-From: josh@skylist.com
X-BeenThere: abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Public forum for discussion on the feedback-report draft <abuse-feedback-report.mipassoc.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mipassoc.org/mailman/listinfo/abuse-feedback-report>,  <mailto:abuse-feedback-report-request@mipassoc.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/abuse-feedback-report>
List-Post: <mailto:abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org>
List-Help: <mailto:abuse-feedback-report-request@mipassoc.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://mipassoc.org/mailman/listinfo/abuse-feedback-report>,  <mailto:abuse-feedback-report-request@mipassoc.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 19:11:00 -0000

On Jun 4, 2006, at 10:42 AM, Steve Atkins wrote:
>>
>> What are the pluses of MIME?  Existing, tested, probably reusable  
>> code
>> and functionality. Is it worth it? ))
>
> Uhm, yes. Moving away from MIME would be a very bad decision.


Steve, don't be so closed minded. While we're at it, we could take  
this opportunity to change the underlying architecture from binary to  
decimal.

~Josh


Received: from m.wordtothewise.com (goliath.word-to-the-wise.com [208.187.80.130]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k54Fgsmo026996 for <abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org>; Sun, 4 Jun 2006 08:42:54 -0700
Received: from [10.3.2.7] (184.word-to-the-wise.com [208.187.80.184]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by m.wordtothewise.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A89F106BC for <abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org>; Sun,  4 Jun 2006 08:42:23 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v750)
References: <2406C6A9-AEB8-4D21-8E8E-62BF482D36FE@blighty.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <059B572D-C109-4359-AB9D-E14A8FB2364E@word-to-the-wise.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Steve Atkins <steve@word-to-the-wise.com>
Subject: Re: [feedback-report] ARF and MIME attachments
Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 08:42:26 -0700
To: abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.750)
X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information
X-Songbird: Clean
X-Songbird-From: steve@word-to-the-wise.com
X-BeenThere: abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Public forum for discussion on the feedback-report draft <abuse-feedback-report.mipassoc.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mipassoc.org/mailman/listinfo/abuse-feedback-report>,  <mailto:abuse-feedback-report-request@mipassoc.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/abuse-feedback-report>
List-Post: <mailto:abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org>
List-Help: <mailto:abuse-feedback-report-request@mipassoc.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://mipassoc.org/mailman/listinfo/abuse-feedback-report>,  <mailto:abuse-feedback-report-request@mipassoc.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 15:42:59 -0000

On Jun 3, 2006, at 11:01 PM, Matthew Elvey wrote:

> As has been discussed before,  It doesn't make sense for an ARF that
> uses MIME to be used for messages currently sent by end-users to the
> addresses that abuse.net gives out, typically abuse@<domain>.  As long
> as ARF is using MIME, this needs to be explicit in the draft, for
> example:
>
> "ARF is not to be sent to the legacy standard abuse email address.
> Instead it should only be sent to addresses that the sender  
> anticipates
> will be prepared to handle it, such as arfreports@<domain>"
>

That's really not sensible. Only the most broken of ticketing systems
and no MUAs that I'm aware of cannot handle MIME well. Even those
broken ticketing systems can handle MIME as plain text perfectly
well, as long as the embedded message has not been base64 encoded
(which is something to avoid).

While I believe that the primary use of ARF will be feedback loops
amongst consenting adults, there is absolutely no reason not to
send MIME emails to abuse@example.com. None.

>
> ((Alternately, MIME could be abandoned... I'm not clear that the
> benefits of MIME outweigh the costs.
>
> Whether the advice is sound or not, it's true that it is common and
> widely taken advice to refuse email containing MIME attachments.

Anyone refusing MIME attachments is not going to be able to handle
abuse reports in any other format in any useful manner.

>
> The need to delimit things could easily be done with simple delimiters
> other than the ones MIME uses.
> (This is obviously true; MIME is generally just a set of delimiters in
> ASCII text; that's the only thing that SMTP servers universally
> support.)
>
> Is there supposed to be some way that reporters will discover whether
> ARF (or mail with attachments) is supported?
> AFAIK, no.

Any ARF report can be read easily with any working MUA or working
ticketing system.

It can even be read as plain text, with no MIME support at all. It's  
just
ASCII.


>
> What are the pluses of MIME?  Existing, tested, probably reusable code
> and functionality. Is it worth it? ))

Uhm, yes. Moving away from MIME would be a very bad decision.

Cheers,
   Steve



Received: from srve.com (copa.geek.net.au [203.217.18.13]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k549vMri013369 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org>; Sun, 4 Jun 2006 02:57:24 -0700
Received: from BLANK (203-217-18-9.perm.iinet.net.au [203.217.18.9]) by srve.com (8.13.6/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k549ukIN031515 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org>; Sun, 4 Jun 2006 09:56:46 GMT
Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 19:56:54 +1000
From: christopher@pobox.com
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Message-ID: <816434615.20060604195654@pobox.com>
To: abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org
Subject: Re: [feedback-report] ARF and MIME attachments
In-Reply-To: <1149400913.26925.262994056@webmail.messagingengine.com>
References: <1149400913.26925.262994056@webmail.messagingengine.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information
X-Songbird: Clean
X-Songbird-From: christopher@pobox.com
X-BeenThere: abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Public forum for discussion on the feedback-report draft <abuse-feedback-report.mipassoc.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mipassoc.org/mailman/listinfo/abuse-feedback-report>,  <mailto:abuse-feedback-report-request@mipassoc.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/abuse-feedback-report>
List-Post: <mailto:abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org>
List-Help: <mailto:abuse-feedback-report-request@mipassoc.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://mipassoc.org/mailman/listinfo/abuse-feedback-report>,  <mailto:abuse-feedback-report-request@mipassoc.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 09:57:42 -0000

ME> As has been discussed before,  It doesn't make sense for an ARF that
ME> uses MIME to be used for messages currently sent by end-users to the
[snip]
ME> Alternately, MIME could be abandoned... I'm not clear that the
ME> benefits of MIME outweigh the costs.
[snip]

Either you're a troll, or you've got no idea what you're talking about
- let me re-phrase what you just said:

" Lets make every ISP on the planet create a whole new abuse reporting
email address, and lets create an entirely new incompatible standard
for encapsulating emails, then make every ISP throw away all their
existing MIME tools and write a plethora of *new* tools to read our
new standard - oh yeah - and while we're at it - lets make every
company that builds email clients and webmail systems implement our
new standard too "



Received: from out3.smtp.messagingengine.com (out3.smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k5462Nsn019593 for <abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org>; Sat, 3 Jun 2006 23:02:23 -0700
Received: from frontend3.internal (frontend3.internal [10.202.2.152]) by frontend1.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C66ED69D5E for <abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org>; Sun,  4 Jun 2006 02:01:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from web2.messagingengine.com ([10.202.2.211]) by frontend3.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 04 Jun 2006 02:01:53 -0400
Received: by web2.messagingengine.com (Postfix, from userid 99) id 305A51BC; Sun,  4 Jun 2006 02:01:53 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <1149400913.26925.262994056@webmail.messagingengine.com>
X-Sasl-Enc: Pe5xAgnPrbSW7LH+kmew9qgJKr1TKl7spiad2zWxEdnQ 1149400913
From: "Matthew Elvey" <matthew@elvey.com>
To: abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: MIME::Lite 5022  (F2.72; T1.15; A1.62; B3.04; Q3.03)
Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2006 23:01:53 -0700
X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information
X-Songbird: Clean
X-Songbird-From: matthew@elvey.com
Subject: [feedback-report] ARF and MIME attachments
X-BeenThere: abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Public forum for discussion on the feedback-report draft <abuse-feedback-report.mipassoc.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mipassoc.org/mailman/listinfo/abuse-feedback-report>,  <mailto:abuse-feedback-report-request@mipassoc.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/abuse-feedback-report>
List-Post: <mailto:abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org>
List-Help: <mailto:abuse-feedback-report-request@mipassoc.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://mipassoc.org/mailman/listinfo/abuse-feedback-report>,  <mailto:abuse-feedback-report-request@mipassoc.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 06:02:35 -0000

As has been discussed before,  It doesn't make sense for an ARF that
uses MIME to be used for messages currently sent by end-users to the
addresses that abuse.net gives out, typically abuse@<domain>.  As long
as ARF is using MIME, this needs to be explicit in the draft, for
example:

"ARF is not to be sent to the legacy standard abuse email address. 
Instead it should only be sent to addresses that the sender anticipates
will be prepared to handle it, such as arfreports@<domain>" 




((Alternately, MIME could be abandoned... I'm not clear that the
benefits of MIME outweigh the costs.

Whether the advice is sound or not, it's true that it is common and
widely taken advice to refuse email containing MIME attachments.

The need to delimit things could easily be done with simple delimiters
other than the ones MIME uses.
(This is obviously true; MIME is generally just a set of delimiters in
ASCII text; that's the only thing that SMTP servers universally
support.)

Is there supposed to be some way that reporters will discover whether
ARF (or mail with attachments) is supported? 
AFAIK, no. 

What are the pluses of MIME?  Existing, tested, probably reusable code
and functionality. Is it worth it? ))