Aaron Stone wrote:
I took an educated guess at this, figuring that it would be better to have some recipients get the
same mail more than once than it is to have a message dropped for others. Multiple receive is
annoying, but silently dropping is unacceptable.
If EX_NOUSER is a better response, go for it!
I guess you have a point when returning EX_TEMPFAIL then :)
Best of all might be finishing up the code for returning a human-readable response on stdout.
This way, we can give EX_NOUSER and also give a message alerting the sender that it *may*
have been received or *may not* have been received, and the sender should either send again or
confirm the message by some other means.
This still sounds somewhat dirty. I'm really wondering what the correct
behaviour would be. If it were a black box, I would expect to get only a
failure message for the failed recipient, but I wouldn't know how to get
to that behaviour without resorting to using LMTP.
Ilja
