On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 08:50:19AM -0700, J.D. Falk wrote: > > On Mar 25, 2010, at 1:56 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > > I said this to Jeff in person at IETF but here it is for the list: > > > > It's my understanding that this was based on a collection of various > > SMTP text replies being returned by various ISPs when objectionable > > content is presented for delivery. Some similarities were noted, and > > then some consolidation was attempted and aligned using the proposed > > x.8.y codes. There is to date no actual implementation of this, and > > no information about how agents that observe these codes during SMTP > > transactions (i.e. senders) would respond to them. That is to say: > > There's no implementation at either end yet. > > > > I think that's fine for Informational or Experimental, but this draft > > is seeking Proposed Standard status. I'd like to see the results of > > some implementation experiments at least. > > Yup, me too. I'd also be curious how the most common MTAs (sendmail, > postfix, exchange, etc) react to reply codes they've never seen before. > They /should/ handle 'em gracefully, but there could be surprises.
Has anyone heard of any problems dealing with Yahoo!'s 421 4.16.55? http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/mail/postmaster/errors/421-ts01.html If not, then we can probably expect the same with x.8.y, yes? > There's been some talk on one of the MAAWG lists about this, but it's > members-only; I'll encourage the participants to repost their comments here. I'm interested in the SMTP conversation being the only conversation that needs to take place about a given message. To the extent that something like this proposal can get me to that goal, without driving follow up questions from senders (e.g., "I got 554 5.8.5 unacceptable content; what do I have to do to make my content acceptable?") then I'm interested in seeing this move forward. -- Todd Herr Principal Engineer and Postmaster V: 703.345.2447 Road Runner Email Operations M: 571.287.0366 [email protected] AIM: RRMailToddHerr
