<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> As with temporary error status codes, the SMTP client retains >> responsibility for the message, but SHOULD not again attempt > I note in passing that "SHOULD not" is bad standards-speak and > needs to be corrected to "SHOULD NOT". Otherwise this is fine.
That's another call for "please fix the NOT": <http://article.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.smtp/7481/match=auth48> I'm not sure how "fine" it is, Hector's and your (among others) interpretations are clearly different. Maybe it is irrelevant, Hector's interpretation only misses an opportunity to "retry". Where KISS (his 3*3 table) and "the mail must flow" principles conflict I'd bet that Hector would prefer "the mail must flow", but this could mean "change critical code at its core". Frank
