-----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 Keith
Moore
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 4:44 AM
To: Hector Santos
Cc: Jeff Macdonald; ietf-smtp(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: slight update to draft-macdonald-antispam-registry
I'm not following this thread closely, but I thought I'd say something
about extended status codes. Part of the idea of extended status codes
is that you should be able to determine the likely source of the
problem by looking at the second facet of the status code. Or to put
it another way, the second facet of the status code is supposed to
indicate _who_ probably needs to fix the problem (e.g. the sender, the
MSA, a relay, the delivery agent, etc.)
I haven't implemented this, but I have to say I really like this approach.
Perhaps the proposal would benefit from making such distinctions in the new
codes it's registering.