> # cat $MAIL_ROOT/spool/?/?/slog/
humm now it works, stupid customers :-P
ignore that davide, was my failure
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe xmail" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For general help: send the line "help" in the body of a message t
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003, [iso-8859-1] S=F6nke Ruempler wrote:
>
> > Well, the RFC "suggest" to return an 552 error code in such case, and t=
his
> > is what XMail returns right now. It used to return a 4xx in the very
> > beginning but it has been changed. My initial though indeed had been th=
at
> >
> Well, the RFC "suggest" to return an 552 error code in such case, and this
> is what XMail returns right now. It used to return a 4xx in the very
> beginning but it has been changed. My initial though indeed had been that
> a full mailbox was a temporary condition.
mhm my internal XMail server
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, Bill Healy wrote:
>
> It's a temporary error not a permanent error, the person at the other
> end might empty the mailbox at any time and then the message could go
> through.
Well, the RFC "suggest" to return an 552 error code in such case, and this
is what XMail returns rig
It's a temporary error not a permanent error, the person at the other
end might empty the mailbox at any time and then the message could go
through.
Bill
>--
>From: S=F6nke Ruempler[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2003 10:45 PM
>To:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject:
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, [iso-8859-1] S=F6nke Ruempler wrote:
>
> hi davide,
>
> once again a bug or feature question. i noticed that xmail tries to send =
a
> message again if the remote server gives the error 'Mailbox full'. Is tha=
t
> right? I think XMail schon bounce that message immediately bac
