In article <ce2ac623.26e97%[email protected]> you write: >If we are inventing new extended codes, I would rather see support for >this: >http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-macdonald-antispam-registry-02
It'll be hard enough to get recipient MTAs to use 5.7.17 for DMARC, which we could define just by adding a paragraph to dmarc-base. It's hard to imagine recipents giving senders fine grained details of why their spam was rejected so the senders can better evade the filters. R's, John _______________________________________________ dmarc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)
