On Thu, 29 Jun 2006, Robert Millan wrote: [...] > Besides, in the long term, this should get better. After all, 551 is > a standard response defined in RFC 2821. I don't see why any MTA > wouldn't want to support it in the sender side.
Well, I wouldn't want to deal with "A redirects to B, B redirects to C, C redirects to D, ..." OTOH I'm not an MTA. HTH, Richard -- ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-dev Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ##
