On 2019-02-27 9:27 a.m., Bill Cole wrote:
However, there are specific basic and enhanced SMTP reply codes which
are direct explicit statements that an address is non-existent which
should be honored immediately rather than taken as possibly mistaken and
retested later with a different message. For example, a 550 reply to
RCPT (or either stage of DATA, if there's only one accepted RCPT)
without any enhanced status code should ALWAYS be treated as an
indication of a non-existent address, as should 550 followed by any
5.1.x enhanced status code.
Hi Bill,
Do remember, in spite of RFC's there also is the perspective by many
SMTP implementations or operators, to NOT reveal whether an email
address actually exists, vs whether the message is non-deliverable.
Some implementations 'choose' to obfuscate the result to some extent to
help against dictionary attacks..
Something to consider..
--
"Catch the Magic of Linux..."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Peddemors, President/CEO LinuxMagic Inc.
Visit us at http://www.linuxmagic.com @linuxmagic
A Wizard IT Company - For More Info http://www.wizard.ca
"LinuxMagic" a Registered TradeMark of Wizard Tower TechnoServices Ltd.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
604-682-0300 Beautiful British Columbia, Canada
This email and any electronic data contained are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed.
Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely
those of the author and are not intended to represent those of the company.
_______________________________________________
mailop mailing list
[email protected]
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
