On 2021-04-06 10:16, Bron Gondwana wrote:
It's not an ideal world, but we don't live in an ideal world. We live
in a real world, and in the real world "Microsoft are huge so they can
handle the cost of doing what I want them to do" only works if you have
a significant enough stick to incentivise them to do so.
I believe O365 clients of *paid* services could argue this is a breach
of the contract. A client wants to deliver a message to
user(_at_)example(_dot_)com. Sending MTA misleadingly says: Receiving MTA of
user(_at_)example(_dot_)com has the problem A (MTA-STS validation failed), that's
why we can't provide you a service you paid for. If that's not the case
(and I suppose it's not: RFC8461, section 4.1 defines MX host Validation
by matching MX record *name* against MTA-STS policy; the end).
Things are more complicated, I believe, and it depends on the
jurisdiction(s), but when refusing to provide a paid service, I'd see
the correct error reporting as a minimum requirement: by either showing
generic or more specific errors, but never misleading ones.
That's more of a legal question though.
--
Regards,
Kristijonas
_______________________________________________
ietf-smtp mailing list
ietf-smtp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp