RE: slight update to draft-macdonald-antispam-registry

["Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ietf-smtp@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ietf-smtp@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Keith Moore
> Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 4:44 AM
> To: Hector Santos
> Cc: Jeff Macdonald; ietf-smtp@xxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: slight update to draft-macdonald-antispam-registry
> 
> I'm not following this thread closely, but I thought I'd say something
> about extended status codes.  Part of the idea of extended status codes
> is that you should be able to determine the likely source of the
> problem by looking at the second facet of the status code.  Or to put
> it another way, the second facet of the status code is supposed to
> indicate _who_ probably needs to fix the problem (e.g. the sender, the
> MSA, a relay, the delivery agent, etc.)

I haven't implemented this, but I have to say I really like this approach.  Perhaps the proposal would benefit from making such distinctions in the new codes it's registering.