On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, Earl Hood wrote:
Earl mentions status codes. Don't you think the "pass" / "fail" /
"softfail" / "neutral" / "temperror" / "permerror" set defined in
draft-kucherawy-sender-auth-header are sufficient? If not, how and where
would you expand on those statuses?
It would be nice to provide a more specific reason of why a "fail"
happened. I see the above as a good classification of grouping
status codes.
For example, for "fail" you can have codes for:
[...]
The specification says you can add comments, so saying "fail (signature
failed to verify)" leaves you with a basic code indicating the type of
failure, and the comment can be used to relay details. The comment can be
directly rendered by whatever agent might find such details desirable.
It's akin to SMTP: "550 <foo(_at_)bar>... User unknown" contains a keyword that
indicates the fact that it was a failure, and comment text that provides
more information.