IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [taugh.com-standards] Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-appsawg-nullmx-06

ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com Thu, 04 September 2014 23:26 UTC

Return-Path: <ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DE0C1A02E5 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 16:26:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.57
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.57 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 7OwFx900Pt9W for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 16:26:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.159.242.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6FE91A02E2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 16:26:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01PC6X6NYXO0002YIZ@mauve.mrochek.com> for ietf@ietf.org; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 16:21:57 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET="us-ascii"
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01PC6T697XOG002TYP@mauve.mrochek.com> (original mail from NED@mauve.mrochek.com) for ietf@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Sep 2014 16:21:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com
Message-id: <01PC6X6M4COG002TYP@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 16:19:55 -0700
Subject: Re: [taugh.com-standards] Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-appsawg-nullmx-06
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Thu, 04 Sep 2014 19:09:42 +0000" <20140904190942.98550.qmail@joyce.lan>
References: <01PC6LRBWYMY002WQY@mauve.mrochek.com> <20140904190942.98550.qmail@joyce.lan>
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/GoygMvryrqBq1OXl1BpCD1T__XE
Cc: ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com, ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 23:26:59 -0000

> >> The choice of 521 here seems rather unfortunate, and based on an
> >> error the experimental RFC 1846.  Please consider 550 or similar.
> >
> >That's part of the problem: None of the existing codes that can be returned in
> >response to RCPT TO are right for the job. 550 is a mailbox access error, 552
> >is a storage allocation error, 553 is an invalid mailbox error, and 555 is a
> >parameter problem. Out of all these 553 is probably the closest, but it is
> >still not quite right.

> I share your opinion that anything that breaks is already broken, but
> considering how widely used Postfix is, it might well be better
> engineering to switch to a 553 code.  Topic already raised in
> appsarea.

That's a fair point. I dislike having to make such accomodations, but the
reality on the ground is what it is, and needs to be considered.

				Ned

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email