[dmarc-discuss] What is the DMARC reject SMTP text?

Michiel van de Vis m.vandevis at acervus.nl
Wed Jun 6 23:27:47 PDT 2012


I believe it can be very useful for SMTP admins to receive a clear response
which states the problem and preferably a link to more information.

So I would prefer a combination of the 126.com / scanmailx.com responses.

Futhermore I think the response should at least contain DMARC. This might
also help to 'spread the word' to SMTP admins who analyse their logs.

/Michiel



2012/6/7 Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser at gmail.com>

> On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 6:40 PM, pandalove <pandalove at 126.com> wrote:
>
>> And in NetEase we use:
>>
>> "550 MI:DMA $HostID, $TransID $now $Helplink\r\n"
>>
>> As an example:
>>  "550 MI:DMA mx1, M8CowEAJvEn_fs9P4xSCAA--.1493S3 1338998527
>> http://mail.163.com/help/help_spam_16.htm?ip=61.141.170.81&hostid=mx1&time=1338998527\r\n
>> "
>>
>>
> Is this something people think we should be standardizing?  It's pretty
> uncommon (read: I haven't seen it) to rely on specific content in the text
> part of an SMTP reply.  It might be interesting to compare, but I think I'm
> a bit itchy about the idea of requiring something specific in there.
>
> -MSK
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc-discuss mailing list
> dmarc-discuss at dmarc.org
> http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss
> NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well
> terms (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://medusa.blackops.org/pipermail/dmarc-discuss/attachments/20120607/fc484013/attachment.htm>


More information about the dmarc-discuss mailing list