[Gen-art] Fwd: Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender

Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net> Wed, 10 February 2021 13:48 UTC

References: <20210210133112.1D800C9B@mailout.west.internal>
To: gen-art@ietf.org
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <4a978829-137b-e0a4-b91d-cc983423f9a1@bbiw.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2021 05:48:53 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20210210133112.1D800C9B@mailout.west.internal>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------080B07C2D2B081C612C84648"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/hU7zI4FBf4PU9LL63Sta0ctfoNU>
Subject: [Gen-art] Fwd: Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender
Precedence: list

ISorry to send this to the gen-art list, but I don't have an alternate 
address for Dale.  I assume he'll see the note the enclosed refers to, 
via this list.  But I'd like to make sure he also knows about this 
bounce reason.

d/


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2021 08:31:12 -0500 (EST)
From: Mail Delivery System <MAILER-DAEMON@messagingengine.com>
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net

This is the mail system at host mailout.west.internal.

I'm sorry to have to inform you that your message could not
be delivered to one or more recipients. It's attached below.

For further assistance, please send mail to postmaster.

If you do so, please include this problem report. You can
delete your own text from the attached returned message.

                    The mail system

<worley@ariadne.com>: host smtp.theworld.com[192.74.137.101] said: 554 
Matches
     spam fingerprint [13]. (in reply to end of DATA command)


-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

--- Begin Message ---

On 2/8/2021 7:42 PM, Dale R. Worley wrote:
> After sending my previous message, I realized that I had gone to length
> explaining why I considered the term "accompanying" to be ill-defined,
> but I had forgotten to mention that in my review, I'd added "Or perhaps
> this should be forward-referenced to the discussion in section 3."  Just
> adding a reference to section 3 would clarify it, because section 3
> covers the matter well.
> 
> Another version that would be good is "The emoji(s) express a
> recipient's summary reaction to the specific message referenced by the
> In-Reply-To header field of the message in which it is present."


Here's the latest version:

The emoji(s) express a recipient's summary reaction to the specific 
message referenced by the accompanying In-Reply-To header field, for the 
message in which they both are present. [Mail-Fmt]. For processing 
details, see Section 3.



d/
-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

--- End Message ---

[Gen-art] Fwd: Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender Dave Crocker