Am 26.03.2013 19:53, schrieb [email protected]: > Extended codes: > 5.1.1 - No such destination mailbox. > 5.1.3 - Bad destination mailbox syntax (should have been checked by the > current relay MTA but wasn't) > 5.1.4 - Destination mailbox ambiguous (matches multiple possibilities) > 5.2.1 - Destination mailbox (valid but) disabled > 5.2.2 - Destination mailbox full (also may be tempfailed) > 5.2.3 - Message too big (if the SIZE parameter is used with MAIL FROM) > 5.3.1 - Mail system full (usually disk storage full) > 5.3.4 - Message too big (systemwide limit, as opposed to a per user limit) > > and these which have nothing to do with the recipient: > 5.1.7 - Bad sending mailbox syntax > 5.1.8 - Bad sending mailbox's system address > 5.7.1 - Spam or other similar refusal (mailboxes otherwise valid) > etc.... > > Only the first two indicate a "no valid user," but all of these (and probably > others) can occur during such a test. Can you 100% guarantee that these > other error reasons will never occur between your primary and secondaries? I > don't think so....
Welcome to real life, where there are no 100% guarantees, ever. In fact, there isn't even a 100% guarantee that a mailserver will return an extended code at all, let alone one that correspond to the actual reason for the rejection.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list [email protected] http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
