Re: Joint legal/technical anti-spam effort

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, 26 May 2003 00:56:19 CDT, "Eric A. Hall" <ehall@ehsco.com>  said:

>     - RCPT TO response codes signifying acceptance levels, EG:
>     - 250 (default) what the law allows by default
>     - 255 (stiff) no solicitations at all
>     - 259 (extreme) no trespassing -- authorized senders only
>     - 25x allows interoperability but other codes may be more useful,

(a) this isn't usefully backwards-compatible - it only helps if you're
talking to another upgraded MTA.  As such, given the usual glacial upgrade
speed, this isn't a short-term solution.

>     - especially considering different jurisdictions will likely need
>       their own codes

See Don Eastlake's I-D:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-eastlake-xxx-05.txt

You're looking at a lot of the same issues.

Attachment: pgp00229.pgp
Description: PGP signature


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]