Re: [ietf-smtp] SMTP, DSNs, and enhanced replies (was: Re: SMTP server reply extensions)

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Thu, 09 April 2020 23:00 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.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 251DE3A12AC for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Apr 2020 16:00:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.852
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.852 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, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.248, 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=ar8gY7Fe; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=R+HVA/s6
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 WzplZ5tKIobL for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Apr 2020 16:00:15 -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 E3DCE3A12A9 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Apr 2020 16:00:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 1805 invoked from network); 9 Apr 2020 23:00:12 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=70a.5e8fa8fc.k2004; bh=cpHlrWE3Ga56atSBz3WL2q/uVaftGvvq1Z3uOIG/4y8=; b=ar8gY7Fe4yK24I0eBlUfgpmNpMkvviReIGS0B6RcfcPVzSfzZh6hsa7uFwxcLdh8PXHgzIcy0502iBcUG6OvXK/NTdH/7rcFDSpDTj2Vn/YBP0iGBkdn6W9iiin93Yd1+0rLdK8EcBDBMs07WsFK2xh0n9SWI75NJQDvoLyO9O2CoR31qQGh7A9d1nA8ibnzNifBS4eQ1K2nucuJ7iyBQY04I2al8240b8uq2P0xPkiBhC0YjRCmi00Mfg8dW4Ub
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=70a.5e8fa8fc.k2004; bh=cpHlrWE3Ga56atSBz3WL2q/uVaftGvvq1Z3uOIG/4y8=; b=R+HVA/s6KzT2dV8N0VqLdaSJmAzLs2hBJPXMBUmxrDTfbIThqRe3a8pXgJ4TPRsSsDoxsH1QOin9OIBfxPFd2qFOfdE0GA3m+P2JoEYvG5kYiGlWiGaVjiTT795hEKIzYvtbbkgHGw+mbLQxTsBghVsPyiJ7F6Xukymxw4kkT3hhg0mOaBW/zuceUlfI7q9ZKc84IXOLJlc3ufA6WCAodBrPlMnjAOgci2KC9h6LTSBH5dKtbc4UTAsBqgwdPrh/
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 ESMTP via TCP6; 09 Apr 2020 23:00:12 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id F039B17637D0; Thu, 9 Apr 2020 19:00:11 -0400 (EDT)
Date: 9 Apr 2020 19:00:11 -0400
Message-Id: <20200409230011.F039B17637D0@ary.qy>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
Cc: blong@google.com
In-Reply-To: <CABa8R6tyf5DHjL7OpwKo7tQS8a3Gt4oNcib=SvRb=OQuO_id+A@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/MvF0WmRpjoUjNvccL3UUiPYrUhU>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] SMTP, DSNs, and enhanced replies (was: Re: SMTP server reply extensions)
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, 09 Apr 2020 23:00:17 -0000

In article <CABa8R6tyf5DHjL7OpwKo7tQS8a3Gt4oNcib=SvRb=OQuO_id+A@mail.gmail.com> you write:
>Not positive ones, but negative ones?  I haven't done a survey of whether
>bounces are typically formatted as DSNs or not, but I thought
>they were more common now.

My impression is that these days if you get a bounce it's usually a DSN.

R's,
John