> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:owner-ietf- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Jeff Macdonald > Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2010 10:34 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: draft-macdonald-antispam-registry and interop > > For those concerned about this draft and interoperability, could I get > further clarification? > > 1) Is it MTA to MTA interoperability? > 2) If it isn't #1, what interoperability is it then? > 3) if it is #1, could someone point out to me where is says that > extended SMTP error codes will impact MTA behaviour?
There are things other than MTAs that talk SMTP, so I can't strictly agree with #1. It's interoperability among anything that talks SMTP. Quietly, the goal of this is useful information exchange between receivers that try to detect spam and senders that are interested in some kind of passive feedback from those receivers. That's probably MTA-to-MTA. But someone using an MUA whose mail is rejected by an MSA using one of these codes could also be affected. I don't think there's any assertion somewhere that a change to the ESC set is guaranteed to impact MTA behavior; some may be impacted, some may not. It's a series of implementation decisions.
