On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 01:32:33PM -0700, William Yardley wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 02:53:23PM -0400, Victor Duchovni wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 11:45:31AM -0700, William Yardley wrote:
>
> > > 2) I have faith that Postfix is doing the right thing and that the
> > > Barracuda possibly is not; my reading is that by not evaluating the
> > > response to RCPT TO before the response from DATA, they're not following
> > > RFC 2920; am I wrong?
>
> > > To me, this seems like broken behavior on the part of the smtp client
> > > (i.e., the Barracuda).
> >
> > No it is fully RFC compliant, and probably using Postfix under the hood
> > to to do the sending...
>
> Sorry - I should have been more clear.
>
> The result is a permanent failure to the original sender of the message,
> based on the 554.
>
> My reading is that the transcript should read as follows, but that the
> Barracuda should evaluate the responses in the order given, i.e., that
> they should queue the message and retry later (based on the 4XX error),
> rather than kick it back to the sender with a 5XX error.
>
> Isn't *that* behavior incorrect?
If the sender gets an immediate bounce, and the recipient is not
retried, and the reported error reason is the 5XX no recipients
for data, rather than the rejection of the recipient, then indeed
you are right, and Postfix does not do what you describe, so perhaps
this particular Barracuda is not using Postfix to send.
--
Viktor.
Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored.
Please do not ignore the "Reply-To" header.
To unsubscribe from the postfix-users list, visit
http://www.postfix.org/lists.html or click the link below:
<mailto:majord...@postfix.org?body=unsubscribe%20postfix-users>
If my response solves your problem, the best way to thank me is to not
send an "it worked, thanks" follow-up. If you must respond, please put
"It worked, thanks" in the "Subject" so I can delete these quickly.
