Rather than include the whole message, I must say that I've been following this thread, and unless I'm missing something, I think Mr. Mann is correct is his investigations and interpretations of the RFC.
While 513 may be a perfectly valid response (5xx is really all that is necessary to convey the general meaning), perhaps 501 is /better/. I'd have to look at the RFC (again, and again), but I think the second digit argument is also compelling. Let none of this go without also saying that I /also/ agree wholeheartedly with the positive sentiments towards Courier and Mr. Sam. On Tue, 27 May 2003, Willi Mann wrote: > Hi! > > I really like Courier for being strict with badly formatted messages. > But with the thread "whole message rejected because of one faulty > recipient" I began to doubt courier's 100% conformance to rfc2821. > > The worst thing IMHO is the lack of the rcpt to:<postmaster>. The RFC > says MUST. > > The other thing was already mentioned in that thread: Some of Courier's > error codes do not follow rfc recommendations. The one I know is 513 > Syntax Error. rfc says: > > 500 Syntax error, command unrecognized > (This may include errors such as command line too long) > 501 Syntax error in parameters or arguments > > I would use 501 if it's a Syntax Error like RCPT TO:<bb>. But never 513. > Exim does it right. I think the RFC is pretty clear about that: > > The third digit gives a finer gradation of meaning in each category > specified by the second digit. The list of replies illustrates this. > Each reply text is recommended rather than mandatory, and may even > change according to the command with which it is associated. On the > > other hand, the reply codes must strictly follow the specifications > > in this section. Receiver implementations should not invent new > > codes for slightly different situations from the ones described here, > but rather adapt codes already defined. > > Please Mr. Sam, fix it or refuse to fix it, but if you refuse to fix it, > please put your arguments in the FAQ. > > As an additional note, I havn't seen any mail to rcpt to:<postmaster> in > real situations so it's not a showstopper in any way. But one thing > about Open Source is that we are idealistic. We do not wait for the > first one who says "I had problems cause of that", we have fun to write > or at least try to write 100% software compliant with standards. This is > one of the reasons why I love open source development and I would like > to see at least the postmaster-issue fixed in one of the next releases. > > Willi Mann > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: ObjectStore. > If flattening out C++ or Java code to make your application fit in a > relational database is painful, don't do it! Check out ObjectStore. > Now part of Progress Software. http://www.objectstore.net/sourceforge > _______________________________________________ > courier-users mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/courier-users > > -- Feast your Vulcan squinties on that! Jon Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> C and Python Code Gardener ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: ObjectStore. If flattening out C++ or Java code to make your application fit in a relational database is painful, don't do it! Check out ObjectStore. Now part of Progress Software. http://www.objectstore.net/sourceforge _______________________________________________ courier-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/courier-users
