RFC 6590: Redaction of Potentially Sensitive Data from Mail Abuse Reports
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
Email messages often contain information that might be considered private or sensitive, per either regulation or social norms. When such a message becomes the subject of a report intended to be shared with other entities, the report generator may wish to redact or elide the sensitive portions of the message. This memo suggests one method for doing so effectively. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC6590
- Published
- April 2012
- Authors
- J. Falk; M. Kucherawy
- Status
- PROPOSED STANDARD
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- app
- Pages
- 8
- Also known as
- —
Topics
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 6449Complaint Feedback Loop Operational RecommendationsCurrent
November 2011
- RFC 6650Creation and Use of Email Feedback Reports: An Applicability Statement for the Abuse Reporting Format (ARF)Current
June 2012
- RFC 6591Authentication Failure Reporting Using the Abuse Reporting FormatUpdated
April 2012
- RFC 6430Email Feedback Report Type Value: not-spamCurrent
November 2011
- RFC 6692Source Ports in Abuse Reporting Format (ARF) ReportsCurrent
July 2012
- RFC 6609Sieve Email Filtering: Include ExtensionCurrent
May 2012
- RFC 6558Sieve Extension for Converting Messages before DeliveryCurrent
March 2012
- RFC 6533Internationalized Delivery Status and Disposition NotificationsCurrent
February 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?