[Top] [All Lists]

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

2010-03-26 12:24:31

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf-smtp(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org [mailto:owner-ietf-
smtp(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Todd Herr
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 10:02 AM
To: ietf-smtp(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-macdonald-antispam-

Has anyone heard of any problems dealing with Yahoo!'s 421 4.16.55?

If not, then we can probably expect the same with x.8.y, yes?

I haven't heard of any MTA that actually looks at ESCs, but that's just me.

I'm interested in the SMTP conversation being the only conversation
that needs to take place about a given message.  To the extent that
something like this proposal can get me to that goal, without driving
follow up questions from senders (e.g., "I got 554 5.8.5 unacceptable
content; what do I have to do to make my content acceptable?") then
I'm interested in seeing this move forward.

But can that really be eliminated?  It seems to me any generic-sounding reply 
text is likely to draw response from some end users at some point, even if the 
RFC defining the code used is very precise.  And the RFCs don't mandate the 
text you use, only the semantics of the specific codes that precede the text.

Was this a concern with the largely generic 5.7.1 when it was introduced?  In 
my experience, it's widely used.  For that matter, all the x.y.0 codes in ESC 
are generic in purpose.

It's really all about the text, which is under the control of the implementers.

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