Feargal Reilly wrote: > Have a look in the dbmail-dev archives for the thread from > Febuary called "MTA return codes from dbmail-stmp", that may > provide you with some of the background.
Hmm, but I cannot see the changes proposed in that thread, unless those were to disable dbmail's internal bouncing while not implementing the return codes to allow the MTA to do them... > IIRC, it was decided over-quota should be a temporary failure as > the recipient may clear his mailbox within the retry period. I > think that's in line with other MDAs. I don't think that is very common, I usually get those bounce messages immediately. It is not very likely that a user will clear the mailbox reasonably fast, especially since he isn't notified, and an MTA cannot inject a message to the user about it either (since it's full). I also recall discussion in RFCs, or similar, suggesting this to be a permanent error, but my memory could fail me. Someone should at least send a warning to sender. > I believe a decision was also made that the error messages are up > to the MTA, not dbmail. There is at least code left in dbmail's source for generating them. As far as I can see, there is no way for the MTA to know what kind of error happened. dbmail-smtp only returns EX_TEMPFAIL and dbmail-lmtpd a "450 ... TEMP FAIL"; not enough for the MTA to generate a informative bounce message. Unless I've missed something, there is no way the MTA can distinguish between "mailbox full" and any of the numerous other kinds of temporary failures (dns, db, network, etc). The bottom line, if this is the way dbmail now works, how are we supposed to use quotas? Regards, Robert Andersson
