Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
Matthew Elvey (FM) writes:
http://www.elvey.com/it/sieve/draft-elvey-refuse-sieve-01h.txt
I suggest adding a sentence saying that SMTP refusal may happen at the
RCPT TO or DATA stages, depending on what's convenient to the
implementation. (I suppose it might also happen at the MAIL FROM
stage, if a systemwide sieve does the refusal.)
The 550 result code is a fine thing, but shouldn't you also specify an
extended result code (1893/2034)? 5.7.1, perhaps?
This is an open issue in the document ;-). Matthew and I weren't sure
what to do with enhanced status codes.
Do you suggest that we mandate 5.7.1 or should we instead mention it and
allow an MTA to select another enhanced status code if appropriate?
Alexey
__________________________________________
Isode Limited, http://www.isode.com
IETF standard related pages:
http://www.melnikov.ca/mel/devel/Links.html
Personal Home Page: http://www.melnikov.ca
__________________________________________