[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Question related to draft-hansen-4468upd-mailesc-registry-02.txt and RFC3463

2007-08-25 12:40:33

ned+ietf-smtp(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com wrote:
My issue is with moving some 7.n codes to 8.m codes. I see no problem with
defining 8 as the place for all future policy codes and putting a bunch of them
in there.


It is probably worth mentioning that Jeff is not pursuing this matter of a personal whim.

There is a formal effort in MAAWG (anti-abuse) to formulate extended SMTP codes that cover policy-related rejections.

Picking up a point made earlier in this thread: while the decision is a matter of local policy, it turns out that most of the range of local policy decisions comes from pretty stable repertoire, with respect to abuse-related rejections.

So the MAAWG community is simply looking for a vehicle that will provide standardized protocol embodiment of the kinds of information that common anti-abuse discussions already demonstrate, when communicating why a message or an author or an operator has been rejected.


  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking