On Mon, 2004-02-09 at 04:55, Ernesto Baschny wrote:
On 8 Feb 2004 at 21:09, Mark Shewmaker wrote:
I would think that 571 be more appropriate code to recommend than 550.
As Greg already pointed out, you are mixing two things:
Thank you and Greg both for pointing out and correcting my
misunderstanding.
Since the reply codes from the SMTP dialog from RFC 2821 are very vague
and antiquate, an enhanced system was specified in your cited RFC 3463.
Those are appended to the normal SMTP-error code (550 or 553). Your
suggestion 5.7.1 is good. So the proper response would be
550 5.7.1 Delivery not authorized, message refused
or maybe something more appropriate:
550 5.7.1 Sender not authorized by domain policy
Obviously a much better suggestion than mine. :-)
So, possibly the spec could recommend "550 5.7.1", possibly suggesting
your second text as a whole. (I really like that wording, btw.)
Either way, I withdraw my suggestion for changing the main reply code
itself from 550 to anything else.
--
Mark Shewmaker
mark(_at_)primefactor(_dot_)com
-------
Sender Permitted From: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Latest draft at http://spf.pobox.com/spf-draft-20040209.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?¡