On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 01:26:59PM +0000, Martin A. Brooks wrote: > On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 13:22 +0000, Chris Lightfoot wrote: > > > In the real world one frequently encounters sites which > > issue permanent failures for over-quota conditions *even > > though* retries shortly afterwards would succeed. > > Tough luck. If the recieving MTA issues a 5xx then you bounce the > message back to the sender and it's the sender's job to decide whether > to resend or not and _not_ some intermediate MTA that thinks it knows > the destination site better than the administrators do.
I fail to see the advantage to the sender or the recipient of your scheme. All it does is create work for them to no end, work that can conveniently be done automatically by the computer for them; and potentially make the transport of their mail less reliable. The computer is supposed to be a labour-saving device! > It's akin to me sending a double glazing salesman round to your house > under the instructions that, if you refuse to purchase double glazing > now, then he should assume that you _might_ do so in a couple of hours > time, so he should call back then _regardless_ of _your_ opinion on the > matter. This is an idiotic analogy. In the case I'm describing the sender wants to send the mail and the receiver wants to receive it. An intermediary prevents the message from arriving for some independent reason (over quota). An over quota condition does not change either party's interest in transmission of the message (presumably the recipient does not wish to be over quota). The an analogy to unwanted real-world spam is completely spurious. -- ``I can't find the [Latin] translation for `responsibility', which might explain a lot of Roman history....'' (Gareth Wilson) -- ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://www.exim.org/eximwiki/
