RFC 6449: Complaint Feedback Loop Operational Recommendations
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
Complaint Feedback Loops similar to those described herein have existed for more than a decade, resulting in many de facto standards and best practices. This document is an attempt to codify, and thus clarify, the ways that both providers and consumers of these feedback mechanisms intend to use the feedback, describing some already common industry practices. This document is the result of cooperative efforts within the Messaging Anti-Abuse Working Group, a trade organization separate from the IETF. The original MAAWG document upon which this document is based was published in April, 2010. This document does not represent the consensus of the IETF; rather it is being published as an Informational RFC to make it widely available to the Internet community and simplify reference to this material from IETF work. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC6449
- Published
- November 2011
- Authors
- J. Falk
- Status
- INFORMATIONAL
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- —
- Pages
- 31
- Also known as
- —
Topics
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 6590Redaction of Potentially Sensitive Data from Mail Abuse ReportsCurrent
April 2012
- RFC 6650Creation and Use of Email Feedback Reports: An Applicability Statement for the Abuse Reporting Format (ARF)Current
June 2012
- RFC 6430Email Feedback Report Type Value: not-spamCurrent
November 2011
- RFC 6591Authentication Failure Reporting Using the Abuse Reporting FormatUpdated
April 2012
- RFC 6692Source Ports in Abuse Reporting Format (ARF) ReportsCurrent
July 2012
Also filed under
About this page
The document record above — title, authors, date, status, stream, area, relationships, DOI and errata — is imported verbatim from the public RFC Editor index. The “in plain English” section is editorial: written by The metasystema editorial team, not part of the RFC. Where the two differ, the RFC text governs.
Last checked against the RFC Editor index on . RFCs are never revised after publication; changes are issued as new documents.
Data sources · Editorial policy · Report a correction · What is an RFC?