On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 07:00:27PM -0700, Jason R. Mastaler wrote:
>So, I don't think we can assume that a 5xx code definitively means
>that the message should not and can not be retried.
Yes, but this problem stems from a specific 5xx code:
550, '5.1.1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... User unknown'
Maybe its enough to fix this problem by fixing only that code,
and worrying about other 5xx codes only when they start filling
tmda_debug.log...?
>FWIW, I consider this yet another example of where qmail "does the
>right thing" even though the other MTAs do not.
I wonder if sendmail (specifically) rejects unknown addresses immediately
because it was originally developed when bandwidth was not so cheap,
and receiving an email was not worth the bandwidth once you knew that
you weren't going to deliver it...? Perhaps exim/postfix just copied
the sendmail behavior...
The choice that qmail has made to do this, does have a consequence.
If I send something to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" I'm going to get a
bounce from your qmail probably indicating that the MTA is in fact qmail.
Where as with sendmail/postfix/exim, the bounce comes from the sending
MTA, and doesn't release any additional information about what programs
are running on the receiving MTA's machine. When you're running sendmail,
this is a very good thing.
_________________________________________________
tmda-workers mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
http://tmda.net/lists/listinfo/tmda-workers
