IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Thu, 31 March 2022 17:56 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 D760C3A181F for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Mar 2022 10:56:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.11
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.11 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, 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=iecc.com header.b=aI6Cv3dL; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=ApDR6woH
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 cZzI0FNZS1Av for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Mar 2022 10:55:57 -0700 (PDT)
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 44C9F3A16A0 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Mar 2022 10:55:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 57149 invoked from network); 31 Mar 2022 17:55:53 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type; s=df3b.6245eb29.k2203; bh=CWrM2p1lM1oMaDoNmnw6G7kTDh20raUmgF0K6OSUdfQ=; b=aI6Cv3dLtJTGfwRs+lLtP0UBdzeZKjQkIMidhpCUkhYTfMWgcuSQynV6a8CHhpbuh0TKIL0BzCSiN/LTO80esdg+QUQr4O/UrmUO3wPctFMD4UWm4scPo4STzdYSaogwVcJBH+K7aDCdxqjG0McwiJLgUX1RE9lwOppFvMpV8Me2RwezWOANuPEJVUEt3CW4XG6wmMM5Q3nUxtceYIZijO5qgY9juJPHJHhV2bUeBSddx7UZzBZZbbBo8A8ug0y7HVABL+3ylRP3lLoYbWIdYZFAuUBDDSkiI/pleY0+NoLpLph7ewhPzZFo/UiDyIqflE7qELQ+UZq2rdmfJmzKtg==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type; s=df3b.6245eb29.k2203; bh=CWrM2p1lM1oMaDoNmnw6G7kTDh20raUmgF0K6OSUdfQ=; b=ApDR6woHff8b6Ktx4oDkF2kCEnIRC7e7WZyf3pOcasisHuIp79EABEC5uVZdrlMfdJGGlXnujWshh4kcPWuTqbn7lBiV8v3GE9kvSLWfIU9MV5IiUmzVrr9dZVx1+rnUir2aTMtyA1m3uocKrpHEj4lI0KJBdM8n64ykJG/eascr4vT4kj+bvXqTO5CXqXU4l1yPfMNUFT0MXzehvJ1nxxG/nCeK+ZACaxC+b5JkXYyL4QYXyUIxu1E7deFHhIljzdww1SsnwRVLVs5IEsD70lSFxFZl24oixnHJroGWJ4GvEZ19Zl8NVv3k+JKTRQk5pWz4ADMf+pLJTau7NYMZsg==
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.2 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD) via TCP6; 31 Mar 2022 17:55:53 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 019873A1F787; Thu, 31 Mar 2022 13:55:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ary.qy (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2D2A3A1F769; Thu, 31 Mar 2022 13:55:51 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2022 13:55:51 -0400
Message-ID: <e6509d72-5b91-3947-4137-af355a173fd3@taugh.com>
From: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>, ietf-smtp@ietf.org
X-X-Sender: johnl@ary.qy
In-Reply-To: <bf608ce1-a9c2-ff52-30d6-c02eeca71b59@dcrocker.net>
References: <20220331170817.756483A1ED82@ary.qy> <bf608ce1-a9c2-ff52-30d6-c02eeca71b59@dcrocker.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/MGQVH0us8YDFM6c7PW9ai3xd4jo>
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 17:56:11 -0000

In case it wasn't clear I am *not* proposing that they advance it as an 
RFC at this point.  You don't need an RFC to do an experiment.  You just 
do it.

A registry is useful to keep experiments from accidentally stepping on 
each other.

With respect to clients, it would take about 10 milliseconds for a bunch 
of ESPs (bulk senders) to sign up for this.  That's not a problem.

R's,
John

On Thu, 31 Mar 2022, Dave Crocker wrote:

> 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.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email