On 8/9/13 5:20 PM, "John Levine" <[email protected]> wrote: >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.
Recipients are doing it today, but they are using extended codes that either don't fit or are simply overloading 5.7.1. I created that draft for very much the same reason that RFC 3463 exists. -- Jeff _______________________________________________ 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)
