On 14/May/11 22:16, Hector Santos wrote: > SM wrote: >> From http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5321.txt >> >> DATA >> >> I: 354 -> data -> S: 250 >> E: 552, 554, 451, 452 >> E: 450, 550 (rejections for policy reasons)
Ok. > I recommend (prefer) text that reflects receiver w/o RFC3463 support. +1, and we have to mandate a precise format for the text, I mean a production rule including %x41.44.53.50, or forget this whole idea that a receiver could make a better job by signaling ADSP violations. > Practically coding, a DKIM aware MLM adding this conditional check > might look for three or five triggers: > > 554 > 5.7.0 > 5.8.0 or 5.8.1 > "ADSP" or "POLICY" or some other recommended work that could be used. Indeed, a gateway on a Mac that forwards by means of the AppleTalk Data Stream Protocol, may signal a failure of the latter stack by 554 ADSP failure. -- http://www.all-acronyms.com/ADSP _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
