Noel and Danny,
> You are correct. A 4xx should be retried. Looks like the handling
for a
> SendFailedException is a problem.
Agreed.
> I don't know if there was a regression when the exception handling was
> reorganized in the most recent patch. Prior to that, the code said
that
> any
> SendFailedException was always permanent.
Don't think there was a regression. In fact, there's an explicit
comment in there that predates the reorganization that seems to regard
any SendFailedException with a non-empty success list as permanent.
And, as I mentioned when I did the reorganization, the post-connection
logic remains unchanged.
> However, since a SendFailedException is a subclass of
MessagingException,
> differing only in the partial delivery nature of the exception, so
would
> you
> please try replacing the return call in that catch clause with:
>
> return failMessage(mail, sfe, (('5' == sfe.getMessage().charAt(0)) ?
true
> :
> false));
I agree. That should resolve the problem. The in situ comments should
also be updated.
> which is what we use for MessagingException, and see if that fixes it
for
> you. I am putting that into my build, too.
>
> If so, I think it is a serious enough bug to patch.
+1
--Peter
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
