--On Monday, November 18, 2024 21:21 +0100 Steffen Nurpmeso <stef...@sdaoden.eu> wrote:
>... > It is unfortunate that SMTP, please let me add emailcore@, has > several codes for disk full etc, but no possibility for a 5xx > regarding failed authorization etc, so that people have to use > "554" for *anything*. >... Steffen, I believe this has been explained several times, but, in case the explanations got lost in long messages that addressed several issues, once more: The codes specified in RFC 5321 (and 5321bis) are imprecise even though some are (or seem) more precise than others. That imprecision is deliberate and goes back to RFC 821. It is one of the reasons why RFC 3463 was developed and published over twenty years ago. I would encourage you to take a careful look at https://www.iana.org/assignments/smtp-enhanced-status-codes/smtp-enhanced-status-codes.xhtml#smtp-enhanced-status-codes-3 and, in particular, the many codes and descriptions registered (so far) as X.7.0 through X.7.30, a fairly significant fraction of which are authorization failures. Some of these are even DKIM-specific. If you wanted to make a recommendation that systems supporting DKIM or similar tools be required to provide those extended codes, I think you would probably get considerable support. There are least two problems with adding more base three-digit codes. One is that, unless you brought all of the overhead of a new SMTP extension with them, you'd never know whether the server supports the new codes or not. The other is that, if you took the granularity of the current extended code list as a starting point, there would be insufficient space for an adequate set of new three digit codes. john _______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list -- ietf-dkim@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to ietf-dkim-le...@ietf.org
