Oh man Eric, you're using big words and heavy use of the stack on your
writing so I'm having a hard time understanding what you say.
But let me put this to the group:
1. we don't really care what error message to generate. What's important
to us and the ISP is that we're not accepting email we don't want and
we're not paying for the bandwidth to receive it.
2. why don't we create a standard error code that says, "I don't know
who you are so I reject your email and if you're a mass-email please
remove me from your list".
What's important, I believe, is that:
1. the recipient decides what email they want to get and what they
don't.
2. unwanted email does not use bandwidth.
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine
[mailto:brunner(_at_)nic-naa(_dot_)net]
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 11:07 AM
To: Yakov Shafranovich
Cc: asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; brunner(_at_)nic-naa(_dot_)net
Subject: Re: [Asrg] TitanKey and "white lies"... (Faking SMTP
hard errors "improves" C/R utility?)
Yakov,
I'd like to be able to respond to the question
Is there a standard of care for delivery and non-delivery?
in the affirmative.
E.g.,
The industry standard for MTA response when delivered mail
addressed to a
local addressee for which service has been administratively
disabled is:
"550 Mailbox disabled for this recipient"
Futzing about with 821 and 2821 means that when the Expert
makes a statement like the above, the nice man or woman in a
suit representing someone who is responding to a claim of
breach of duty by asserting there is no standard will have
you to thank.
Lets not make judgements more difficult by making the norms elusive.
Eric
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg