[Top] [All Lists]

RE: slight update to draft-macdonald-antispam-registry

2011-05-11 12:41:00

-----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 Hector 
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 9:25 AM
To: ietf-smtp(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Cc: ietf-smtp(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: slight update to draft-macdonald-antispam-registry

For something labeled under "Anti-Spam" related, I like the idea of
building a consensus for something along the lines of a "Alert Status"
(i.e. LOW, MED, HIGH) that provides the BCP for these X.8.YYY codes:

    Code:          5.8.11
    Sample Text:   IDENTITY has been compromised
    Associated Basic Status Code: 550
    Alert Status:  HIGH, Local Operator should be notified

I mean, what will most receivers do when the receivers detect and
determine the need to issues these X.8.YYY codes?  There was a reason
for it and many of these are pretty serious where a) you don't want to
encourage a retry, thus 55x 5.8.YYY is issued and b) the local
operator may needs to notified rather than just log it.

I don't think it's a good idea to create a standard that attempts to provoke 
specific behavior in receivers (in this case, SMTP clients that receive these 
messages).  Otherwise, I can return 5.8.11 for anything that I think your 
operators should deal with right away.

It's sufficient to describe the problem in detail and let the operator decide 
what's critical and what isn't.

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