Re: Is this a STraw Poll? (was Standardize Complaints-To as deployed)

["Charles Lindsey" <chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In <41C5EAC4.9050809@xxxxxxxxx> Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov-usefor@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

>Charles Lindsey wrote:

>>>>>As a chair I would note that I see no consensus to use mail-complaint-to 
>>>>>over complaints-url.
>>>>>        
>>>>>
>>
>>I think the question is whether to provide both of them initially.
>>
>This WG has enough work to do already, so I am Ok with defining 
>complaints-url in a separate document. However the syntax for 
>Injection-Info (or whatever we end up using) should allow for multiple 
>URLs.

OK, so it seems that a mail-complaints-to parameter in Injection-Info is
the front runner. So we would need, in USEFOR:

   inj-info-param  =  post-host-param /
                      post-account-param /
                      sender-param /
                      logging-param /
                      mail-complaints-param

   mail-complaints-param = "mail-complaints-to" "=" address-list

and then:

   The specified <address>(es) is for sending complaints concerning the
   behaviour of the poster of the article; it SHOULD NOT be used for
   matters concerning propagation, protocol problems, etc. which should be
   addressed to "usenet@" or "news@" the <path-identity> (see [RFC 2142]).
   In the absence of this parameter, complaints concerning a poster's
   behaviour MAY be addressed to "abuse@" that <path-identity> (again, see
   [RFC 2142], though that address may not be available at injecting
   agents not provided for the use of the general public).

If we are agreed on that, then we can ask Ken to incorporate it into
USEFOR.

[Note that some related texts from draft-13 relating to mailability of
<path-identity>s have not yet made their way into USEFOR.]

The only other alternative remaining on the table is the Complaints-To
header as in draft-13. I received some mail from Alexey about this which I
am reproducing here, because it is part of the same discussion:

>....Charles Lindsey wrote:
 
>>Incidentally, one of the advantages of a Complaints-To header over a
>>parameter of Injection-Info is that it would be suitable for use in
>>Emails, if the email community wants to use it. 
  
>Can you elaborate on potential usage scenarios for email?

The situations I had in mind were where some ISP operated an email
submission agent, and had an AUP which forbade harrassment, spamming, and
other such evils. So it might add a Complaints-To header to emails passing
through it. Or else it might be added by a mailing list expander which had
rules about what could be posted to the list.

It is not for us to say whether that header should be used for email or
not, but it would clearly be suitable, whereas the Injection-Info header
is no way suited to email. Whether this factor should sway our decision on
the matter is for the WG to decide.
 
-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5