spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: 550 vs. 571 as recommended spf-fail permanent failure code

2004-02-09 01:39:11
--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?¡


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>