[Top] [All Lists]

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

2010-03-26 12:57:38

-----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

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
follow up questions from senders (e.g., "I got 554 5.8.5
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
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
RFCs don't mandate the text you use, only the semantics of the
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

Then it comes back to Todd's original point - what's the value?  If this
effort adds codes that only raise more questions and answers none of the
existing ones...

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