[Top] [All Lists]

Re: draft-ietf-sieve-refuse-reject-07.txt

2008-05-29 16:15:18

On Thu May 29 17:22:46 2008, Ned Freed wrote:
(1) is only appropriate if the MAIL FROM is emoty, NOTIFY=NEVER is in effect, the MAIL FROM Is somehow known to be forged. That leaves generating a DSN as the only viable alternative in most cases.

As a brief aside - I agree with both Matthew's aims here and Ned's conclusions - it did occur to me that a (possibly LMTP specific) response code of some form which indicated both that the mail was rejected as was strongly considered to be forged (or otherwise not worthwhile to send a DSN for) might be a possibility, although not for this document or even working group.

I suspect that using a 2xx in this case might be best, since it would become a "discard", in effect, if the LMTP client didn't understand it, and the additional bandwidth and processing for LMTP connections is negligable. For SMTP, a 4xx might be more sensible, which would reduce the bandwidth, but not generate a DSN instantly.

Dave Cridland - mailto:dave(_at_)cridland(_dot_)net - 
 - acap://
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>