On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 09:30:40AM +0100, Philip Hazel wrote: > On Thu, 29 Jun 2006, Tony Finch wrote: > > > 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. > > > > Because it has been obsolete and unsupported for decades. There are lots > > of features in old IETF protocols which are vestigial remnants that have > > almost never been used. > > I also do not believe that "this should get better". If MTAs were going > to implement this, they would have done so long ago. After all, the 551 > code is defined in RFC 821, which was published in 1982, nearly a > quarter of a century ago.
But times have changed; spam has never been as much significant as it is today. (and the two main advantages of using code 551 are somehow spam-related) -- Robert Millan -- ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-dev Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ##
