on 5/26/2003 10:56 AM Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > 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. Bulk-mailers as senders are a small enough scope that forced upgrades within a grace-period window is feasible. No recipients have to upgrade unless they want stronger rejection levels over the default. Every system that generates 250 today would have the default protection tomorrow. There is some validity to the argument that non-spamming senders would have to upgrade to recognize the stronger codes. Perhaps this is the best argument for using codes other than 25x. -- Eric A. Hall http://www.ehsco.com/ Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/