Re: draft-ietf-sieve-refuse-reject-07.txt

[Dave Cridland <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu May 29 17:22:46 2008, Ned Freed wrote:
> (1) is only appropriate if the MAIL FROM is emoty, NOTIFY=NEVER is  
> in effect,
> the MAIL FROM Is somehow known to be forged. That leaves generating  
> a DSN as the only viable alternative in most cases.

As a brief aside - I agree with both Matthew's aims here and Ned's  
conclusions - it did occur to me that a (possibly LMTP specific)  
response code of some form which indicated both that the mail was  
rejected as was strongly considered to be forged (or otherwise not  
worthwhile to send a DSN for) might be a possibility, although not  
for this document or even working group.

I suspect that using a 2xx in this case might be best, since it would  
become a "discard", in effect, if the LMTP client didn't understand  
it, and the additional bandwidth and processing for LMTP connections  
is negligable. For SMTP, a 4xx might be more sensible, which would  
reduce the bandwidth, but not generate a DSN instantly.

Dave.
--
Dave Cridland - mailto:dave@xxxxxxxxxxxx - xmpp:dwd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
 - http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade