Re: [dmarc-ietf] Review of draft-kucherawy-dmarc-base-00 (was:Fwd: Eliot's review of the DMARC spec)

[SM <[e-mail]>]

Hi Frank,
At 01:14 06-07-2013, Franck Martin wrote:
>There is not much standardization of response codes from MTAs. There 
>are extended response codes, but then you cannot deduct from them, 
>if the problem is due to DMARC or other security policies. If I'm 
>not mistaken, take the case of Facebook, refusing an email because 
>you are not a friend of the recipient... Or the same error code 
>could indicate SPF or DKIM or other protocol failure... Having the 
>word DMARC in the text of the error message gives a lot of 
>information for debugging a specific email. Consider also the error 
>could be generated after a forwarder is trying to send an email... 
>Without a proper hint of what is the reason of the reject it is very 
>hard to know what really happened for a specific email.

That is usually know as a local policy decision.  If I recall 
correctly the question of the sender knowing the reason for a mail 
delivery failure was discussed in another working group.

I understand the use case mentioned above.  I would look at the draft 
in terms of a standard for the Internet, if that is the intended 
purpose, instead of a document about how to know why a message is 
considered as spam.

Regards,
-sm