On 14/May/11 22:16, Hector Santos wrote:
SM wrote:
From http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5321.txt
DATA
I: 354 -> data -> S: 250
E: 552, 554, 451, 452
E: 450, 550 (rejections for policy reasons)
Ok.
I recommend (prefer) text that reflects receiver w/o RFC3463 support.
+1, and we have to mandate a precise format for the text, I mean a
production rule including %x41.44.53.50, or forget this whole idea
that a receiver could make a better job by signaling ADSP violations.
Practically coding, a DKIM aware MLM adding this conditional check
might look for three or five triggers:
554
5.7.0
5.8.0 or 5.8.1
"ADSP" or "POLICY" or some other recommended work that could be used.
Indeed, a gateway on a Mac that forwards by means of the AppleTalk
Data Stream Protocol, may signal a failure of the latter stack by
554 ADSP failure.
--
http://www.all-acronyms.com/ADSP
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html