-----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 Jeff Macdonald
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2010 10:34 AM
To: ietf-smtp(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Subject: draft-macdonald-antispam-registry and interop
For those concerned about this draft and interoperability, could I get
further clarification?
1) Is it MTA to MTA interoperability?
2) If it isn't #1, what interoperability is it then?
3) if it is #1, could someone point out to me where is says that
extended SMTP error codes will impact MTA behaviour?
There are things other than MTAs that talk SMTP, so I can't strictly agree with
#1. It's interoperability among anything that talks SMTP.
Quietly, the goal of this is useful information exchange between receivers that
try to detect spam and senders that are interested in some kind of passive
feedback from those receivers. That's probably MTA-to-MTA. But someone using
an MUA whose mail is rejected by an MSA using one of these codes could also be
affected.
I don't think there's any assertion somewhere that a change to the ESC set is
guaranteed to impact MTA behavior; some may be impacted, some may not. It's a
series of implementation decisions.