On 14/2-2004, at 0.30, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Thomas von Hassel writes:
This is not necesarily a courier question, but since thats what i use
What reason is there to respond to a user unknown with transient
error code instead of a permanent failure ? ..like this:
: 450 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
--On Samstag, 14. Februar 2004 10:32 +0100 Thomas von Hassel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What reason is there to respond to a user unknown with transient
error code instead of a permanent failure ? ..like this:
: 450 [EMAIL PROTECTED]: User unknown in local recipient table
i've seen this a
Thomas von Hassel writes:
On 14/2-2004, at 0.30, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Thomas von Hassel writes:
This is not necesarily a courier question, but since thats what i use
What reason is there to respond to a user unknown with transient
error code instead of a permanent failure ? ..like
On 14/2-2004, at 15.23, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Thomas von Hassel writes:
On 14/2-2004, at 0.30, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Thomas von Hassel writes:
This is not necesarily a courier question, but since thats what i
use
What reason is there to respond to a user unknown with transient
error
Thomas von Hassel writes:
This is not necesarily a courier question, but since thats what i use
What reason is there to respond to a user unknown with transient
error code instead of a permanent failure ? ..like this:
: 450 [EMAIL PROTECTED]: User unknown in local recipient table
i've
