[122855] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tony Finch)
Mon Feb 22 14:12:11 2010
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 19:11:16 +0000
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
To: Steven Bellovin <smb@cs.columbia.edu>
In-Reply-To: <3C19B274-DFDD-4D58-B236-716FD46AE271@cs.columbia.edu>
Cc: NANOG Operators Group <nanog@merit.edu>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, Steven Bellovin wrote:
>
> I am seriously suggesting that a redirect mechanism -- perhaps
> the email equivalent of HTPP's 301/302 -- would be worth considering.
> Then, of course, there's problem of upgrading the $\aleph_0$ mail
> senders out there to comply...
See the 251 and 551 response codes first specified in RFC 788 section 3.2
and currently specified in RFC 5321 section 3.4. No-one implements them.
Tony.
--
f.anthony.n.finch <dot@dotat.at> http://dotat.at/
GERMAN BIGHT HUMBER: SOUTHWEST 5 TO 7. MODERATE OR ROUGH. SQUALLY SHOWERS.
MODERATE OR GOOD.
