-----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
Santos
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 3:25 PM
To: ietf-smtp(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: slight update to draft-macdonald-antispam-registry
You seem to reject the whole idea which is funny since this tangent
thread started as a Moore response to the basic idea of the status
code parts to direct actionable "blame" (client vs receiver) and you
agreed and followed up:
"Perhaps the proposal would benefit from making
such distinctions in the new codes it's registering."
It all sound pretty similar too me - the end result is the same.
I like the idea of having an indication in the status code of which actor
involved is the one most likely to be able to solve the problem, with more
granularity than is there now.
I dislike the idea of some normative indication about how loud to sound the
alarm bell.
Is that more clear?