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 19:30 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 5B08C3A0E0A for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Mar 2022 12:30:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.11
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.11 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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=rN6RsFhf; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=ZSBG+N8M
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 VdVtkulw_qaR for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Mar 2022 12:30:00 -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 DAE8A3A0DA4 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Mar 2022 12:29:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 75156 invoked from network); 31 Mar 2022 19:29:57 -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=12592.62460135.k2203; bh=UGcbOF89Cli06IOeyNcLZKS3jfdU1zqshgZv6e45Jok=; b=rN6RsFhfuRAtoqsLGuLrD9AFEh8+Q/ZOmvX/tR8zhWlfMcSXYj9V3aPPIocF/tQ8nfosTGnZO84rssY3+UyU0BzOfcsvl1tcBb9sug/U8XhB0rb7ytVEtqdjqOgdRUTs9Ga8Vua910dFcHxE9Z56dTmOHgu/WXjDtUvUrrEAfyLJkYDL6Jb6RIelq1ecA92OrWQ5LLKdpZMqgl962DalnWEkSkGvc5qRvQngRKNzIgqXQH8Tc0TBwBbdI3UWTKLfh9DEe7ksGPIU10xVIImo1zc40+KXW/308eXrudUj/SOrPoMLNEjbO6WzFhVPMMZlOpQq3n1TX/8ZZKigVCq1BA==
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=12592.62460135.k2203; bh=UGcbOF89Cli06IOeyNcLZKS3jfdU1zqshgZv6e45Jok=; b=ZSBG+N8MIcmlkbujJD8ZsHMd0p4aH0GN3RwcGWyJqXeqp9eZLl5/XORdoQ2+9P8PUUv7sStoHw3acnaM3BJVAhXl+k9evB/0mkN7zB3krJyTJAD0zb+YtgH+duEOkSbpgRmpXfLhpLxFmU7ZSn8uHOlgTle40WR99beCe7MJgiSzxpFGGEJaa/BTPBgJK3gowGUcR73gRlRPHU9r3lbcD43NU5+Nn4nDJkwGP59zPGN+hr0wHPl0dEVGDUQmQskoG36baQ7FI/Hp4c3lVNBrYP8LhRGSUQq8NFJ7mjIQnB90584+LFVWfZsOI6Usjpmln/RFNQUOjip8ddC/2riCnw==
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 19:29:57 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 286B13A20D24; Thu, 31 Mar 2022 15:29:56 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ary.qy (Postfix) with ESMTP id B90123A20D05; Thu, 31 Mar 2022 15:29:56 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2022 15:29:56 -0400
Message-ID: <08b2bd61-88da-b168-94d9-88078a01bf24@taugh.com>
From: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, ietf-smtp@ietf.org
X-X-Sender: johnl@ary.qy
In-Reply-To: <92AA9F634D6D1165C49157E7@PSB>
References: <20220331170817.756483A1ED82@ary.qy> <92AA9F634D6D1165C49157E7@PSB>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/Xenw5qyFA6uxMkjAwSELMs6xRmY>
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 19:30:05 -0000

On Thu, 31 Mar 2022, John C Klensin wrote:
> Personal opinion: Simplifying "exercises like this" is not
> necessarily a useful goal.  Please note the last two paragraphs
> of Section 2.2.1 of RFC 5321 (and its equivalents in its
> predecessors going back to RFC 1425). ...

Well, the alternative is to squat on return codes and take your chances. 
Be careful what you wish for.

How about a registry with an expert review rule that new codes need to be 
enabled by an extension or else standards track RFC.

> While it might work for, e.g., Comcast->Comcast messages and
> some others (see below), I don't see it working well with the
> model.  Suppose we have a sender at example.net who generates a
> message in an MUA, hands it off to a submission server, ...

Naah.  The people using this will be ESPs, people who send bulk mail for 
commercial clients.  I promise you they'd implement in in the 
aforementioned ten milliseconds.

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