IETF Logo Mail Archive

[ietf-smtp] SMTP status codes 251 and 551

"John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Mon, 10 February 2020 02:58 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.com>
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 79C6D12008C for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 Feb 2020 18:58:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=E8kwA9Ok; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=AP3XMCIo
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 v1NT3LlGS-0B for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 Feb 2020 18:58:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (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 9ADD8120072 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Sun, 9 Feb 2020 18:58:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 67157 invoked from network); 10 Feb 2020 02:58:06 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=10650.5e40c6be.k2002; i=johnl-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; bh=i2AOXbrgs2HuaLktsDYVOxNi6G0YMAsHGL5Nv3QwT+Y=; b=E8kwA9OkBnBTE/NgDEgU7VEzcNLiG1QK8riwlAz7RYSjcN1AIxXInNpxr9VFocGbboxRtSfxZHLEFl6HTV+B3CFoqbeh0+uKkNfJ72iA41jeph7JMMm+YkCiOkPu6Ib3bsyVFZBHp6IZcHTP0++ubaddnW6eJTV2yJHHYJhFNoVxJ8AlUgGhv4y6X22IN/rFtFs77ipWuThlIU0NpK2lDw1+ziMu0cKyWujQh5sFqr7LWaNijos6UNkxADifYk0q
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=10650.5e40c6be.k2002; olt=johnl-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; bh=i2AOXbrgs2HuaLktsDYVOxNi6G0YMAsHGL5Nv3QwT+Y=; b=AP3XMCIoaXZmtB8GowjkqqsOorTcwNjYJo3aA3UJ4OMjI4ZSPk2CNp3Psp0WRwWsgNw2ye7n+4bYB3aDBDMXSZHtixgrUe6SUkHuy3A65ACjw7tnoevKZ1FokoaqnxzdI+rHuPoolRlqaDxpH5g7B5PPdBU3bIPlPLWve91nWEQ0WJAfUL0Rx0FD7MD6V5YWmg8wBlFD3Tr7OERoAGtnHrbFP/cPAcwLwnoT50Chg+q1vfaAp736q1ck6YVdB4W/
Received: from localhost ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPSA (TLS1.3 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD, johnl@iecc.com) via TCP6; 10 Feb 2020 02:58:05 -0000
Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2020 21:58:05 -0500
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.21.99999.374.2002092153420.61082@ary.qy>
From: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21.99999 (OSX 374 2019-10-27)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="US-ASCII"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/IPr8CIh6xOCvopyGaWhOsr7ABAg>
Subject: [ietf-smtp] SMTP status codes 251 and 551
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: Mon, 10 Feb 2020 02:58:09 -0000

SMTP has had the 251 and 551 status codes for a long time, since RFC 788 
in 1981.  The 251 code means (roughly) I'll accept this address but I'll 
forward it to <x>, and 551 means address rejected, send it to <x> instead. 
The idea is that the sending system should note the <x> address so in 
future it sends mail directly there.

Did anyone every actually implement these, and in particular the sender 
side to remember and redirect?  You don't have to tell me all the reasons 
it's a bad idea, many of which are described in the RFCs.  I'm just 
wondering whether this was ever real, or it just seemed like a good idea.

Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email