Off-list, the following suggestion was made:
- it is perhaps a matter of style, but the Introduction shouldn't contain the
whole work; suggest splitting it into an Introduction that describes the goal
of the work, and a Discussion that then spells it out
To this point, I have the following changes so far:
1. Introduction
This RFC defines a set of Enhanced Status Codes [RFC3463] [RFC1893]
for SMTP related to anti-spam policy. These codes are to be
registered with the IANA Mail Enhanced Status Codes registry as
defined in [RFC5248]. Anti-Spam policy is inherently a local
decision.
This document is being discussed on the SMTP mailing list,
ietf-smtp(_at_)imc(_dot_)org [1].
2. Introducing the Anti-Spam Subject
The most common extended SMTP code assigned to anti-spam policy is
5.7.1. This is because the subject code of 7 is meant for security
or policy. For anti-spam policy, the only logical detail code is 1,
"Delivery not authorized, message refused". Using 5.7.1 for many
different anti-spam policies weakens the usefulness of extended SMTP
error codes. One of the motivations behind [RFC3463] was to
re-distribute the classifications of SMTP error codes in order to
provide a richer set of errors, and provide a means for
machine-readable, human language independent status codes. Thus a
new subject code of 8 is introduced for anti-spam policy.
3. Methodology of determining new detail codes
All of the new detail text was gathered by surveying several existing
large ISPs to see what messages were produce when presented with
messages that violate their policies. An attempt was then made to
coalesce the messages together into common themes. These themes
where then simply assigned a detail number.
While this document provides suggested text for each detail code,
alternate text can be provided if the text is in the spirit of the
suggested text. This will allow sites to simply prepend the proper
extended SMTP code to their existing text. Sites that are starting
to implement anti-spam policy SHOULD use the text provided in this
document.
While this document strives to document common anti-spam policies, it
is by nature incomplete. [RFC3463] notes that new subject and detail
codes will be added over time. This document is no exception to that
and can be extended at future dates.
I'd appreciate any comments. I have many other comments to incorporate
still, just wanted to keep a pulse on the document.
--
Jeff Macdonald
Ayer, MA