isn't one of those even an RFC? I don't think any MTA (with the possible exception of PMDF) bothers to check past the first number in deciding what to do. Am I wrong?
the whole rfc 1893 enhanced codes seem pointless to me, but that's a digression. On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 20:57:48 +0000 (UTC), [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 14 Oct 2004, John Peacock wrote: > > > so qpsmtpd is perfectly fine. > > I've also seen some proposals for new error codes (i.e. if you are > bouncing spam or viruses). Would most/all MTAs properly handle a > (currently) undefined code? We could easily implement these new codes > right away in qpsmtpd, but I'm wondering if certain MTAs would get > confused or worse. > -- David L Nicol "Valuable ideas can withstand scrutiny" -- authors of /XP Explained/
