> 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.
you're missing the point. the remote side has already informed you that the
error is permanent and should generate a bounce message. is your MUA so
"smart" that it knows exactly when the error condition will be remedied?
there are a lot of errors that could conceivably be considered "temporary,"
but the determination of whether the error is temporary or permanent should
be determined by the server doing the mail delivery. to assume your client
is smarter than the server, despite the fact that your client knows nothing
about the server, is not only foolish, it defeats the purpose of having
return codes in the first place.
shag
