> > -----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.
Then it comes back to Todd's original point - what's the value? If this effort adds codes that only raise more questions and answers none of the existing ones...
