ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Joint legal/technical anti-spam effort

2003-05-26 09:14:29
On Mon, 26 May 2003 00:56:19 CDT, "Eric A. Hall" <ehall(_at_)ehsco(_dot_)com>  
said:

    - RCPT TO response codes signifying acceptance levels, EG:
    - 250 (default) what the law allows by default
    - 255 (stiff) no solicitations at all
    - 259 (extreme) no trespassing -- authorized senders only
    - 25x allows interoperability but other codes may be more useful,

(a) this isn't usefully backwards-compatible - it only helps if you're
talking to another upgraded MTA.  As such, given the usual glacial upgrade
speed, this isn't a short-term solution.

    - especially considering different jurisdictions will likely need
      their own codes

See Don Eastlake's I-D:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-eastlake-xxx-05.txt

You're looking at a lot of the same issues.

Attachment: pgpuencykEUSp.pgp
Description: PGP signature