Re: [ietf-smtp] Updated draft for "SMTP Response for Detected Spam"

Claus Assmann <ietf-smtp@esmtp.org> Wed, 30 March 2022 18:13 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-smtp@esmtp.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B5313A0490 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Mar 2022 11:13:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.907
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.907 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 msw4_4wmclmt for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Mar 2022 11:13:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from veps.esmtp.org (veps.esmtp.org [155.138.203.148]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 95E473A0451 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Mar 2022 11:13:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from veps.esmtp.org (localhost. [127.0.0.1]) by veps.esmtp.org (MeTA1-1.1.Alpha17.1) with ESMTPS (TLS=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384, bits=256, verify=OK) id S00000000000285A300; Wed, 30 Mar 2022 18:13:27 +0000
Received: (from ca@localhost) by veps.esmtp.org (8.16.1/8.12.10.Beta0/Submit) id 22UIDR9C042652 for ietf-smtp@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Mar 2022 18:13:27 GMT
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2022 18:13:24 +0000
From: Claus Assmann <ietf-smtp@esmtp.org>
To: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20220330181324.GA96148@veps.esmtp.org>
Reply-To: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
Mail-Followup-To: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
References: <CH2PR11MB4342C5648A79FFEC1DE0FC45F71F9@CH2PR11MB4342.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <b0a1c8d3-212d-2b67-035d-18963ca41109@linuxmagic.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <b0a1c8d3-212d-2b67-035d-18963ca41109@linuxmagic.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/8zVF40hFhgiVee-n0Bw4yPeh7DM>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] Updated draft for "SMTP Response for Detected Spam"
X-BeenThere: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of issues related to Simple Mail Transfer Protocol \(SMTP\) \[RFC 821, RFC 2821, RFC 5321\]" <ietf-smtp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf-smtp>, <mailto:ietf-smtp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf-smtp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-smtp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-smtp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp>, <mailto:ietf-smtp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2022 18:13:35 -0000

On Wed, Mar 30, 2022, Michael Peddemors wrote:

> Do we add a code for every use case?

> 258 Deliver to the Marketing Folder
> 257 Stripped Attachments before delivery
> 256 Added your IP to our Blacklist
> 254 Accepted, but stripping headers

Please don't use up all the 25x codes,
use the enhanced status code for this purpose.

-- 
Address is valid for this mailing list only, please do not reply
to it directly, but to the list.