EHLO or HELO is the required first command sequence. If the receiving MTA issued a 550 response to the RCPT TO commands instead, Exchange would exhibit the behavior you desire.
A new RFC seems excessive when a more intelligent functional implementation would achieve the objective. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Kennedy, Jim > Posted At: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 11:28 AM > Posted To: swynk > Conversation: Exhange 2003 and 550's > Subject: RE: Exhange 2003 and 550's > > > > Dunno on this one. It just does not feel right. > > "The SMTP client is discouraged from repeating the exact > request (in the same sequence)." > > In this case, the sending blacklisted server is acting as the client. > And right now it is repeating the exact request, and will do > so for 48 hours. I realize discouraged does not mean give up. > I think it's time for a new RFC that has a provision for a > specific code that say 'Go away, do not retry'. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Ed > > Crowley [MVP] > > Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 12:13 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Exhange 2003 and 550's > > > > RFC 2821 says: > > > > 5yz Permanent Negative Completion reply > > The command was not accepted and the requested action did not > > occur. The SMTP client is discouraged from repeating > the exact > > request (in the same sequence). Even some "permanent" error > > conditions can be corrected, so the human user may want to > > direct > > the SMTP client to reinitiate the command sequence by direct > > action at some point in the future (e.g., after the > spelling has > > been changed, or the user has altered the account status). > > > > So, I would characterize Exchange's handling of this response as > > appropriate. > > > > Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP > > Freelance E-Mail Philosopher > > Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > > Kennedy, Jim > > Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 6:34 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: Exhange 2003 and 550's > > > > > > Ok, I had the sinking feeling that Exchange still does not > handle 5XX > > errors properly. So today I tested and confirmed. > > Hoping I messed something up. > > > > I blacklisted my home email server at work. Home is also Exchange > > 2003. > > Sent a message to our work server, it was rejected with a > 550. But my > > home server is still retrying to send it, has been for > awhile now. I > > telneted into the work/receiving server from my blacklisted home > > server. > > As soon as I helo'd I got a 550. > > > > Isn't a 550 a fatal, and shouldn't Exchange stop trying > upon the first > > failure and return the NDR? _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/read/?forum=exchange To subscribe: http://e-newsletters.internet.com/discussionlists.html/ To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at: Jupitermedia Corp. Attn: Discussion List Management 475 Park Avenue South New York, NY 10016 Please include the email address which you have been contacted with.
