IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Thu, 04 September 2014 19:10 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.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 38B2A1A0273 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 12:10:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.137
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.137 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 1I_1Rf4FTQhc for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 12:10:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8CAD61A02EB for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 12:10:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 53623 invoked from network); 4 Sep 2014 19:10:04 -0000
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (64.57.183.18) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 4 Sep 2014 19:10:04 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:reply-to:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=180f7.5408b90c.k1409; i=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=fzWitvEZNfnbSVNIxe5OSlFRzRNu/EXXH1Ub1R1VZIQ=; b=ewK1iKzep//n7eBM6ZHGE4MuhQgomaLvk6/hQyt2FBPobOKicmVv7nwGworaohx3YnbUnlukglGrxIJNbUYY89NfIwg6Gc+/h+rjJ/m2z5eQREB1iMlRDI8lKktEZbfF4UpCZfFBRfpaA+fcaHJ9JIm2/ETPgOFUUZ5dgrG0ZL4uq4c3a9yz5HH2zm50fKP+NOIYBjFC8L5RvEsxlx6Hgus6i8IErUyVt5xetQeYVefoypOF0WQwdDq1AARw5F4L
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:reply-to:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=180f7.5408b90c.k1409; olt=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=fzWitvEZNfnbSVNIxe5OSlFRzRNu/EXXH1Ub1R1VZIQ=; b=AOjdPnxwSVP8JJR7zZi4bno20fDuNaVtXmc3Xc2h3g9XDq8PCStUx+8vTFTdGeAFzVoIoEiCR+twSrgq6gJwvivP9qEhtvsEGEa41vy/OjYnz+DaETEtzjs5bqvOt0XbWQ7V1998x+zM8XElK7SmjJIw4BhyEWWmJW3AmaNJFIKcAYz8m8e6bdEZWixNcfos+Ws8JnHjVyrwvw9fTI8zKfbwAcvgk6GO3LW5ykYsv1bt8+bpefbyWbsOmged2ej0
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 19:09:42 -0000
Message-ID: <20140904190942.98550.qmail@joyce.lan>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [taugh.com-standards] Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-appsawg-nullmx-06
In-Reply-To: <01PC6LRBWYMY002WQY@mauve.mrochek.com>
Organization:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/V-Gv6XQdOmdP8dx30OfEfeLyQTo
Cc: ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
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 19:10:08 -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.

R's,
John

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email