--Mark Shewmaker <mark(_at_)primefactor(_dot_)com> wrote:
I would think that 571 be more appropriate code to recommend than 550.
From RFC3463:
| X.7.1 Delivery not authorized, message refused
|
| The sender is not authorized to send to the destination. This
| can be the result of per-host or per-recipient filtering. This
| memo does not discuss the merits of any such filtering, but
| provides a mechanism to report such. This is useful only as a
| permanent error.
If I understand right, the 550 and 5.7.1 appear in different contexts and
can be mixed/matched. That is, the 5.7.1 would appear after the 550 to
comply with both RFC2821 and RFC3463. I don't think it's correct to use
"571" where you want "5.7.1"
For example: my sendmail installation uses "554 5.7.1 text..." for email
blocked by security policy and "553 5.0.0 text..." for items blocked by
blacklists like SPEWS
gregc
--
Greg Connor <gconnor(_at_)nekodojo(_dot_)org>
-------
Sender Permitted From: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Latest draft at http://spf.pobox.com/draft-mengwong-spf-02.9.7.txt
Wiki: http://spfwiki.infinitepenguins.net/pmwiki.php/SenderPermittedFrom/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname(_at_)©#«Mo\¯HÝÜîU;±¤Ö¤Íµø?¡