Racer X wrote:
> > 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?
No, I have not missed the point. I am intentionally ignoring the point.
I do know what the point is.
> 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.
I suggest that if it is a violation of the standard to disregard the
meaning conveyed in a standardized form (such as SMTP), then it is
likewise a violation to assert a false or incorrect meaning. If we
are going to look beyond the communication itself and examine the
behaviour behind the communication then we must be fair and examine
it on both ends. That means that if the MTA receiving the mail conveys
an error as permanent, when in fact it is not, then this must be a
violation if we are considering that behavious is subject to these rules.
I may not know in the instance that the violation has taken place, but
I certainly can know (and do know) from actual experience that this
violation does take place routinely. I see nothing wrong in conduction
like violations in reverse to compensate.
--
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]
