On Jan 30, 2008, at 3:18 AM, Charles Lindsey wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 17:52:57 -, Jeff Macdonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 09:46:26AM -0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
In any event, "on behalf of" is key wording that permits more
flexibility than you seem to be a
Jeff Macdonald wrote:
> would this be a 5.7.x enhanced status code?
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hansen-4468upd-mailesc-registry
notes that X.7.1 is associated with 550 pointing to RFC 3463 for
the details:
| X.7.1 Delivery not authorized, message refused
| The sender is not authorized to
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 03:34:33PM +0100, Frank Ellermann wrote:
5.7.0 is apparently too unspecific. In theory SSP could create
its own 5.7.x if the eight existing codes are not good enough:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3463#section-3.8
That is what I'm getting at. A new 5.7.x.
--
:: Jeff M
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 11:18:08AM -, Charles Lindsey wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 17:52:57 -, Jeff Macdonald
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 09:46:26AM -0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
In any event, "on behalf of" is key wording that permits more flexibility
than you see
Charles Lindsey wrote:
BTW, would it be useful for a signature to contain some feature to
indicate whether it claimed to be a 1st/2nd/3rd/whatever-party signature?
I believe the following proposal was stamped as issue #1542.
http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2008q1/008816.html
Unde
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 17:52:57 -, Jeff Macdonald
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 09:46:26AM -0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
In any event, "on behalf of" is key wording that permits more
flexibility than you seem to be acknowledging. Note, for example, that
the agent spec
