Sam replied:
> On Mon, 11 Oct 1999, Phil Howard wrote:
>
> > Sam replied:
> >
> > > On Sun, 10 Oct 1999, Phil Howard wrote:
> > >
> > > > > This is not up to you. The remote server responded with a permanent
> > > > > failure code. The mail gets bounced.
> > > >
> > > > I understand that it is a permanent failure code. But clearly a full
> > > > mailbox is not a true permanent situation (although a spammer case is
> > >
> > > This is not your call. It is the receiving mail server that gets to
> > > decide what is a permanent failure, and what is a temporary failure.
> >
> > But my server can decide whether to bounce it now or requeue it and try
> > again later as if it were a temporary error.
>
> Then it wouldn't be a server that implements SMTP.
In the purest sense, no, it would not be.
> > > Well, yes. It's called RFC 822. It specifies that all 4xx error codes
> > > are temporary failures, and that all 5xx error codes are permanent
> > > failures.
> >
> > I mean a programmed table in qmail, where it specifies the internal routines
> > for the action. If such a table is in a config file, I could change it
> > there. If it is in the code, I can change it there. If it's not organized
> > that way, I guess I'll have to code explicit checks.
>
> Of course it's not organized that way, because SMTP servers do not have
> any need for that. They just look at the numeric code, 4xx or 5xx, and
> take one of two possible actions.
It is very possible to configure many server implementations in ways that
do not precisely obey the standard protocols. It's then up to the system
administrator to "do the right thing". I do know sendmail can be configured
to "misbehave". Many server implementations have some aspects of the protocols
entirely configurable. Conformance is done by means of the whole of the code
and the configuration together. For example, a lookup table for actions to
take for each different response code (but I think I mentioned it).
Conceivably, a smart MUA could resend mail when it gets a bounce back that
it thinks is a temporary condition. In most cases when I get errors trying
to deliver mail to people, I don't always assume they have passed away.
The difference would be doing this in the MUA vs the MTA. For mail sent
by a user, doing it in the MUA makes sense. For bounce mail, there isn't
really a separate MUA. The approach I speak of is just a simple hack to
effect a similar behaviour.
I'm not asking of this conforms to SMTP; I'm asking if it is easy or difficult.
I'm now going to assume it's difficult.
People who know me know I am not a standards purist.
--
Phil Howard | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
phil | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
at | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ipal | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
dot | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
net | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
