Warning - I'm writing this on a mobile device.....
On Mar 24, 2010, at 5:20 PM, Ned Freed <ned(_dot_)freed(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com>
wrote:
I mean, when a mail is sent to a mailing list, can X.7.1 be returned?
Sure, but given that a more specific error code exists for a list
authorization
problem, it's not an ideal value to return.
Can X.7.2 be returned, when the mail is not sent to a mailing list?
Of course it can be, but it's pretty clearly wrong to do so.
I agree with Ned here.
Generally the question is if the recipient likes the sender, here
is not
relevant if the sender is a mailing list or not.
I don't understand this.
Me either, could you clarify this?
Your draft adds:
Code: X.8.9
Sample Text: this recipient will not accept any messages
from
<IDENTITY>
Associated Basic Status Code: ????
Description: The recipient has chosen to not accept
message
from IDENTITY. Administrators MAY include
a URL
for further details by appending the text
with
": see <URL> for further details."
Can you clarify when shall X.7.1 be used, when X.7.2 and when X.8.9?
My take is that it's something of a stretch to use 5.7.1 for "I
don't like you
please go away" sorts of responses, and having a more specific code
for this
particular case isn't a bad thing. OTOH, when there's a failure due
to, say. a
rule check or a sieve ereject or whatever, divining the intent in
order to make
thi distinction may be impossible. In that case the general error -
possibly
even general to the point of 5.7.0 being the right thing - wins.
Yes, except I'd argue to use 5.8.0 instead.
The firther in my domain I apply the following practice: when I get a
spam, it is SMTP-rejected and the result of the SpamAssassin
evaluation
is concatenated to the result.
<snip example>
Which of the draft-macdonald-antispam-registry-00 codes shall be
used in
this case?
Without performing an analysis of the SA output and some sort of
mapping, I
would say that a fairly generic sort of error is the best you can
do. It would
be simple to add a "reject mail unconditionally from this address"
rule to SA,
which would pretty clearly be best served by the proposed 5.8.9
code. But a
result like the one you show, which appears to have nothing to do with
rejection on the basis of sender identity information is a pretty
clear misfit.
Once again, Ned sums it up nicely. My proposed list is probably
incomplete. I don't have it readily available at the moment, but I
would lean towards a code that mentions filtering.
Ned
P.S. Please note I'm not advocating for or against the proposed
draft here.
These things require careful review before that sort of assessment
can be made,
and I haven't done such a review yet.
Thanks Ned. I look forward when you do have a chance.