Re: Updated draft for "SMTP Response for Detected Spam"

It appears that Brotman, Alex <[email protected]> said:
>Hey folks,
>
>I wanted to send an update for this draft.  I received (negative) feedback from one person via the list, though several outside of the list were supportive.  I
>wanted to try to clear up some of the language in the draft.  Appreciate feedback from those who are interested to read.

I'm still not thrilled but anyway

It needs to define an SMTP extension so servers know that they can reply 259 rather than 250
at the end of data, e.g.

ehlo cruddy.mail.org
250-sceptical.server.com
250-STARTTLS
250-PIPELINING
250-ENHANCEDSTATUSCODES
250 MAYBESPAM

mail from:<[email protected]> MAYBESPAM
250 2.1.0 Sender accepted.

rcpt to:<[email protected]>
250 2.1.0 Recipient accepted.

Although there used to be server replies that contained strings for
the client to parse, they're all obsolete and these days clients only
look at the three digit status code and the three part extended status code.
Don't have a great suggestion for how else to encode it other than maybe
a range of enhanced status codes 2.6.20 through 2.6.29 for spam scores 0/10
to 9/10.

R's,
John