On 05/27/2010 07:35 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org] >> On Behalf Of Michael Thomas >> Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 6:22 AM >> To: Roland Turner >> Cc: DKIM List >> Subject: [ietf-dkim] bad mail blowback >> >> So the question is, in my mind, should the receiver just silently >> discard >> it which breaks reliability but allows the MLM to do nothing special, >> or >> should the receiver bounce/5xx it back. To my mind, if the MLM is going >> to >> do something as drastic kick the receiving user, it ought to at least >> be >> open to a 5xx explanation that it's the mail in question that's the >> problem >> instead of blindly giving the user X number of 5xx's before they're >> declared >> a nuisance and kicked. > > This is something the lists BCP could discuss. Perhaps something like: > bounces with enhanced status codes of 5.7.1 should not be counted against the > recipient as they are done for message-specific policy reasons and not for > something more general. > > (I might have the "5.7.1" wrong, but you get the idea.)
Considering that this is really a 5822 level problem, I have my doubts that a DKIM/ADSP targeted document is the right place to bury this kind of advice. And I'm also skeptical that we have the right set of eyes looking at this in this working group because this is certainly a very old topic and it would be stupid of us to come out with advice that goes against or without the consent of the much larger smtp community. On the other hand, if the larger email community already has a normative or BCP solution to this which we can just restate, then that's great. (which might be what you're getting at). Mike _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
