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