Am 29.04.2013 06:10, schrieb Stan Hoeppner: > On 4/28/2013 7:33 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: >> There is an important difference, which is why the defer variant >> is used as a safety net, and the use-case is precisely when the >> client is an MTA. > > Apparently I didn't make my point clear, which is that a hard fail isn't > necessary here, and that a temp fail is preferable to cover all client > types. I think Reindl was advocating a hard fail. I was countering his > argument
uhm as i said: * the machine is not MX for any single domain * the machine must not accept any unauthenticated message * and so any aerror is NOT tenporary until smtp auth is used
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
