On May 19, 2011, at 5:29 PM, Jeff Macdonald wrote:
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 4:33 PM, Keith Moore
<moore(_at_)network-heretics(_dot_)com> wrote:
Because doing so will conflate different sources of the problem. I don't
want to overload recipient-specified policy, recipient domain specified
policy, and blacklist-specified policy. Those need to be kept separate,
because they need different fixes. And it makes more sense to have a
separate 'subject' for each of these, than to try to distinguish the
different sources of these problems using different 'detail' codes.
So my thinking when I wrote the draft was the "source" was the
anti-spam system. It seems to follow the spirit of the other subject
codes. Like x.4.z means the source is the "Network". When a sender saw
a x.8.z, he would understand the recipient's anti-spam system was
involved. The detail code would tell him what was actually wrong.
Having a subject code for the recipient's anti-spam system is all well and
good. But if the message was rejected not because of the recipient's anti-spam
system, but rather, because of a 3rd party blacklist or reputation server, I
think there should be a separate subject code for that, because the likely way
to fix the problem is going to be to via that blacklist or reputation server
rather than via the recipient.
Also, there's a difference between an anti-spam system that the recipient
maintains, and one that the recipient domain maintains on behalf of all of its
recipients. Though I doubt that a lot of detail is needed for
recipient-specified criteria.
Of course this begs the question of what subject code should be used when a
message is rejected due to a combination of criteria - some based on the
message itself, and some based on information obtained externally from a
blacklist or reputation server. And I guess in that case the subject code
needs to point to whatever party aggregated that information and made the
reject decision.
Keith