IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ietf-smtp] Return codes, was Updated draft for "SMTP Response for Detected Spam"

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Thu, 31 March 2022 17:18 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
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 8006C3A126D for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Mar 2022 10:18:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.111
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.111 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=dcrocker.net
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 d6-gwRhzmqLQ for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Mar 2022 10:17:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from beige.elm.relay.mailchannels.net (beige.elm.relay.mailchannels.net [23.83.212.16]) (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 3CA683A18C0 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Mar 2022 10:17:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Sender-Id: hostingeremail|x-authsender|dhc@dcrocker.net
Received: from relay.mailchannels.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 959F86C0068; Thu, 31 Mar 2022 17:17:38 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from gcp-us-central1-a-smtpout2.hostinger.io (unknown [127.0.0.6]) (Authenticated sender: hostingeremail) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id D69EE6C0B3A; Thu, 31 Mar 2022 17:17:37 +0000 (UTC)
ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-2022; d=mailchannels.net; t=1648747058; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=ZlHieOpt1LqQQf0EyDvPlOgx0Tc7rRjqXBQK8AOumkIyIKW/utQOrR9vuGRYsoEkG2Qdop LSDkxtXhRKyzXAhvH2/q73d9k88ZtEFiRDmD/cvHJ9Rl5V4+qKFz8+OrM5Afpo48Kw12xs GOGDhVrn9DzCnKBp98QNOvDrdPRbCsKY3jQ6Ys0AG3a0/tkpIyCwpmW8O6g6UAp/f9uiOn jxCyzsuqCCum9sylPaxyUwpXnOEGjsXZag+ZG4cB9pvHiT9/rNEltijDh0Nwxnj4FA9ilN SpMppv8LI0FQ1xJ3fXPTx0/a5AEldhGxEiVWcvb0vrQ/1hFRmO1fvMMlJWBH7Q==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mailchannels.net; s=arc-2022; t=1648747058; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:dkim-signature; bh=HLRCfotR+n2JPJsLaMy4Cjgel06QJDlhSDcfV/gmZF4=; b=ygI3qm4aV30vZPrvV/50Zo5VoQRzul3wPqUJ8clW5a0L6NSezfxub7MXmLyYk2ZqIb3UfG K95Dm8lYUQ8Zooo27HOA0FGaNUAlpdta97QBVpgfyC4w+1ZIkMl5sjrJE6L2wmQGagLsRs Ef9tSUv/FyFchkADskS7OEthWlHdL8tBQDOU+DKRC7CctofImJPB034nf8SVGP+46AXbrL IxzfOpBSRkWPBZi53IkQg5zdsxyeErR5ZNG/h7V1Lv9QGbY6yP7xKypLhRDuLdZe01PF/p fke9WC+T/LuZaDyxLx18X2TS3dWrt5zdPcQGOZAEJ2OAEpnZnrAi8LdiBorCgA==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; rspamd-78f9fcf68b-f48bs; auth=pass smtp.auth=hostingeremail smtp.mailfrom=dhc@dcrocker.net
X-Sender-Id: hostingeremail|x-authsender|dhc@dcrocker.net
Received: from gcp-us-central1-a-smtpout2.hostinger.io (gcp-us-central1-a-smtpout2.hostinger.io [35.192.45.35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256) by 100.115.45.14 (trex/6.5.3); Thu, 31 Mar 2022 17:17:38 +0000
X-MC-Relay: Neutral
X-MailChannels-SenderId: hostingeremail|x-authsender|dhc@dcrocker.net
X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: hostingeremail
X-Stop-Arithmetic: 522766c553a2581e_1648747058383_4083529349
X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1648747058383:617460372
X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1648747058383
Received: from [192.168.0.112] (c-73-170-122-71.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [73.170.122.71]) (Authenticated sender: dhc@dcrocker.net) by smtp.hostinger.com (smtp.hostinger.com) with ESMTPSA id 4KTqk64zprz7bYYp; Thu, 31 Mar 2022 17:17:34 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=dcrocker.net; s=hostingermail-a; t=1648747056; bh=mzLw/s8SuOZkR4WeJbBcT45tyVjdvfUi4QmI5bCkDwc=; h=Date:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=A+GQ0d/nkB65uXNW+I55NARiyK5YmN8U2EKds57ODUuvbVQl2LInoTMCo9nLDZyl/ L6+yFy/0DMF/zIgMLCj3/BIaENVw3FpblKfsJsUfl98zCLkJz5rtCfefzT+/zwB+YI Mg9rmK0aeZ+kA03ogPiGxYNRMNG39ubNNZrh4e0mlV/NVTCofA3k/64VC109ScgNRe dVIOKpBwMvgHr9FvK+EU8W/61G8kU4DV4wgxkT+cENv0wALrjzmP6/Rnf5GTbDg7lB Srq5q/OI87uQfhGndAS8pULGAXDLt65iZUInwQgeef1Hha+LHtwe43uroOOEmt6iaj AJRmoSlZq+AeQ==
Message-ID: <bf608ce1-a9c2-ff52-30d6-c02eeca71b59@dcrocker.net>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2022 10:17:31 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.7.0
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
Content-Language: en-US
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, ietf-smtp@ietf.org
Cc: john-ietf@jck.com
References: <20220331170817.756483A1ED82@ary.qy>
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
In-Reply-To: <20220331170817.756483A1ED82@ary.qy>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/EqJSUonzA9ACqY93TEUB5BdusEU>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] Return codes, was 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: Thu, 31 Mar 2022 17:18:05 -0000

On 3/31/2022 10:08 AM, John Levine wrote:
> With respect to 259 vs 559, Comcast is a pretty big mail system. If
> they think this could be useful, which they apparently do, I think it
> would be a fine idea to try the experiment


In its current form, it is far too tentative about utility.

1.  It needs to be specific and specify meaningful action
2.  It really should have a demonstrated base of interest, to give some 
indication that returning the code(s) will be useful to at least some 
client SMTPs.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email