I thought we had extended SMTP codes for that. To bring meaning to the
rejection. The only thing the client MTA needs to know is what to do with the
message when it is rejected.
I think that's what the xxx should express:
- don't try again
- try again in same or different session
- disconnect and try again later
- disconnect and try again on another MTA immediately
- ok
- ok continue
- ....
Toute connaissance est une réponse à une question.
On Sep 19, 2014, at 9:28, Alessandro Vesely <vesely(_at_)tana(_dot_)it> wrote:
On Thu 18/Sep/2014 20:24:38 +0200 Christoph Kluge wrote:
But that isn’t the point. The question is whether SMTP clients SHOULD also
expect a “policy code” in CONNECT and MAY act accordingly, and how this
is covered by said RFC.
Every upcoming authentication method has at some point considered the
need to color its rejections with its own reply code. For an older
snippet on 550 vs 554, see:
John C Klensin, [yam] Ambiguities in RFC 5321, 21 Nov 2009
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam/current/msg00186.html
My understanding is that SMTP reply codes serve to guide protocol
behavior rather than to ruminate deliverability statistics after the
fact. The latter is confined to text strings, which may include
status codes.
Ale
_______________________________________________
ietf-smtp mailing list
ietf-smtp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp
_______________________________________________
ietf-smtp mailing list
ietf-smtp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp