[Top] [All Lists]

Re: New Version Notification for draft-macdonald-antispam-registry-00

2010-03-25 14:00:44

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> 

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
    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.


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.