IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] [ietf-smtp] Registering email status codes for authentication failures

Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no> Fri, 09 May 2014 09:32 UTC

Return-Path: <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCA7C1A0243 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 May 2014 02:32:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.3
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_34=0.6] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3qyrhdEh29xA for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 May 2014 02:32:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from strange.aox.org (strange.aox.org [80.244.248.170]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5CA11A0238 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 May 2014 02:32:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fri.gulbrandsen.priv.no (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by strange.aox.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47A9BFA032D; Fri, 9 May 2014 09:32:41 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no by fri.gulbrandsen.priv.no (Archiveopteryx 3.2.0) with esmtpsa id 1399627960-3291-3291/11/1; Fri, 9 May 2014 09:32:40 +0000
From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Date: Fri, 09 May 2014 11:32:39 +0200
User-Agent: Trojita/v0.3.96-176-g713fcbb; Qt/4.8.4; X11; Linux; Ubuntu 13.10
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <8fc7ac7f-6e6e-45ab-b564-06555f82da7c@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
In-Reply-To: <00a101cf6b66$1ea379e0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
References: <CAL0qLwYgVfW0xdksU=o-MsbHO5OF+GWE=6yT+Sc5839aTYc98Q@mail.gmail.com> <20140508203109.3798.qmail@joyce.lan> <16af3c3c01ee475eb5f2277b46d40576@BL2SR01MB605.namsdf01.sdf.exchangelabs.com> <CAL0qLwagQxBnbZ6oA8e-uCX_zxXgfwbk2dxDf8upXzTwQqNmSw@mail.gmail.com> <00a101cf6b66$1ea379e0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/vDT5MLbNTYbwN9ByLXPstLCOLRY
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] [ietf-smtp] Registering email status codes for authentication failures
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 May 2014 09:32:48 -0000

There's always been cases where several status codes were possible, e.g.
5.2.x+5.4.y. AFAICT servers generally report whichever issue they notice 
first, which is perhaps not perfect but has been good enough for a long 
time. Why does SPF+DKIM warrant more protocol treatment?

Arnt

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status