Re: [ietf-smtp] SMTP server reply extensions

[Ned Freed <[e-mail]>]

> > Of course it makes sense to reuse existing structured syntax when possible. As
> > for reusing existing enhanced status code, I'm really not on board with that -
> > I think new values are the right way to do it, and that once again we've been
> > guilty of integer-hoarding. (We really should have reserved a range for private
> > use, but there are enough values that it's difficult to get excited about
> > this.)

> So you are recommending not using the 551 code for the redirection purpose?

I don't this the SMTP code you use matters much - the enhanced status code is
what I would look at to determine if there's additional information. But if
your information fits the 551 syntax, sure, why not? Although in our case I
think we use 450 since we regard this as a temporary failure. (AFAIK there is
no 551 temporary equivalent with the same semantics.)

> Hmm. Now thinking further about this, I'm not sure 551 would be enough for my
> purposes either. I think I'm going to need multiple different things returned
> in the reply. So maybe I'll do it with a new private response code also. Any
> recommendations what private codes to use? Maybe x.y.100 and over?

We used .99.

				Ned