Of course it makes sense to reuse existing structured syntax when possible.
As
for reusing existing enhanced status code, I'm really not on board with
that -
I think new values are the right way to do it, and that once again we've
been
guilty of integer-hoarding. (We really should have reserved a range for
private
use, but there are enough values that it's difficult to get excited about
this.)
So you are recommending not using the 551 code for the redirection purpose?
I don't this the SMTP code you use matters much - the enhanced status code is
what I would look at to determine if there's additional information. But if
your information fits the 551 syntax, sure, why not? Although in our case I
think we use 450 since we regard this as a temporary failure. (AFAIK there is
no 551 temporary equivalent with the same semantics.)
Hmm. Now thinking further about this, I'm not sure 551 would be enough for my
purposes either. I think I'm going to need multiple different things returned
in the reply. So maybe I'll do it with a new private response code also. Any
recommendations what private codes to use? Maybe x.y.100 and over?
We used .99.
Ned
_______________________________________________
ietf-smtp mailing list
ietf-smtp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp