* Lindsay Haisley <fmo...@fmp.com>:
> On Tue, 2011-07-12 at 17:23 +0200, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
> > Is disabling a list a temporary measure? If it is, should the server reply a
> > temporary error?
>
> In my humble opinion, an intentionally disabled list should cause the
> mail system to generate a 500 class error (permanent error). 400 class
> errors (temporary errors) are generally reserved for situations where
> the _intention_ is that the mail should go through but is prevented from
> doing so by problems for which a solution is in progress. A 400 class
> error causes the originating system to cache and re-try delivery, so if
> a list returns a 400 class error, it's just "delayed", not truly
> "disabled". This may be a fine distinction, and if a list is disabled
ACK. Looking at the available codes I guess the best return code would probably
be 550:
550 Requested action not taken: mailbox unavailable (e.g., mailbox
not found, no access, or command rejected for policy reasons)
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5321.txt, section 4.2.3. Reply
Codes in Numeric Order>
p@rick
--
state of mind ()
http://www.state-of-mind.de
Franziskanerstraße 15 Telefon +49 89 3090 4664
81669 München Telefax +49 89 3090 4666
Amtsgericht München Partnerschaftsregister PR 563
_______________________________________________
Mailman-Developers mailing list
Mailman-Developers@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers
Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3
Searchable Archives:
http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-developers%40python.org/
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-developers/archive%40jab.org
Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
