On Wed, 3 Apr 2002, Gerrit P. Haase wrote: > Hallo Davide, > > Am 2002-04-02 um 23:07 schriebst du: > > > On Tue, 2 Apr 2002, Gerrit P. Haase wrote: > > >> Davide schrieb: > >> > >> >> I tested the spam filters and got this reply from XMail: > >> >> > >> >> 250 koeln.convey.de > >> >> mail from:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> >> 504 You are registered as spammer > >> >> > >> >> Isn't 504 the wrong error code? > >> >> Shouldn't it be > >> >> 571: Delivery not authorized, message refused > >> >> or > >> >> 550: Requested action not taken: mailbox unavailable > >> >> (550 is from the current drafts for the replacement of RFC821) > >> > >> > Neither of the two actually, but anyway i do have some work to do on > >> > return codes ( that one is not the only one that is not 100% correct ). > >> > >> At least Exim will use 550 in future (I read this in the fetchmail > >> manpage). > > > 550 is not correct because it applies to mailboxes, 571 is there for these > > cases. > > If I sent an email to my server (koeln.convey.de where I have a mailbox: > [EMAIL PROTECTED]) and I'm a spammer then it is correct to get 550.
not really because at the mail_from stage the mailbox is still unknown - Davide - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe xmail" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line "help" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
