IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ietf-smtp] Updated draft for "SMTP Response for Detected Spam"

Richard Clayton <richard@highwayman.com> Wed, 30 March 2022 21:26 UTC

Return-Path: <richard@highwayman.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 394073A0F40 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Mar 2022 14:26:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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
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 9dFp1N65MMRa for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Mar 2022 14:26:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.highwayman.com (mail.highwayman.com [82.69.6.249]) (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 7DF573A0E8E for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Mar 2022 14:26:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:62217 helo=happyday.al.cl.cam.ac.uk) by mail.highwayman.com with esmtp (Exim 4.95) (envelope-from <richard@highwayman.com>) id 1nZfps-0006FD-A3 for ietf-smtp@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Mar 2022 21:26:36 +0000
Message-ID: <XJ7mEBMGrMRiFAps@highwayman.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2022 22:25:26 +0100
To: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
From: Richard Clayton <richard@highwayman.com>
References: <CH2PR11MB4342C5648A79FFEC1DE0FC45F71F9@CH2PR11MB4342.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <b0a1c8d3-212d-2b67-035d-18963ca41109@linuxmagic.com> <20220330181324.GA96148@veps.esmtp.org>
In-Reply-To: <20220330181324.GA96148@veps.esmtp.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.03 M <nH$$+L2r77$rEOKLT+U+dOStkd>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/f1lKY_CsPEicOh18rn1ArvJiiHY>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] 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: Wed, 30 Mar 2022 21:26:45 -0000

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In message <20220330181324.GA96148@veps.esmtp.org>, Claus Assmann <ietf-
smtp@esmtp.org> writes

>Please don't use up all the 25x codes,
>use the enhanced status code for this purpose.

Since the receiver knows the message is spam I was wondering why the
code was 259 rather than 559 ...

... also, the text mentions all sorts of terms of art like "spam folder"
and "Email Service Provider" which I can't find in RFC5598 or defined in
later sections (assuming that their meaning is relevant ?)

- -- 
richard                                                   Richard Clayton

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary 
Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin 11 Nov 1755

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1

iQA/AwUBYkTKxt2nQQHFxEViEQL0xACgmbRpNqJIOqelWSvgnhJROU7KDMMAoI1f
I0ShnluPglaJleEXm0Es4jBA
=ZnvV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email