> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:owner-ietf- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Todd Herr > Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 10:02 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-macdonald-antispam- > registry-00 > > 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?
I haven't heard of any MTA that actually looks at ESCs, but that's just me. > 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. But can that really be eliminated? It seems to me any generic-sounding reply text is likely to draw response from some end users at some point, even if the RFC defining the code used is very precise. And the RFCs don't mandate the text you use, only the semantics of the specific codes that precede the text. Was this a concern with the largely generic 5.7.1 when it was introduced? In my experience, it's widely used. For that matter, all the x.y.0 codes in ESC are generic in purpose. It's really all about the text, which is under the control of the implementers.
