Hi Cris,

550 is ok for

#define CHKUSER_NORCPT_STRING "511 sorry, no mailbox here by that name (#5.1.1 - chkuser)\r\n"

What about other cases?

#define CHKUSER_MBXFULL_STRING "522 sorry, recipient mailbox is full (#5.2.2 - chkuser)\r\n"
#define CHKUSER_MAXRCPT_STRING "571 sorry, reached maximum number of recipients for one session (#5.7.1 - chkuser)\r\n"
#define CHKUSER_MAXWRONGRCPT_STRING "571 sorry, you are violating our security policies (#5.1.1 - chkuser)\r\n"
#define CHKUSER_DOMAINMISSING_STRING "511 sorry, you must specify a domain (#5.1.1 - chkuser)\r\n"
#define CHKUSER_RCPTFORMAT_STRING "511 sorry, recipient address has invalid format (#5.1.1 - chkuser)\r\n"
#define CHKUSER_RCPTMX_STRING "511 sorry, can't find a valid MX for rcpt domain (#5.1.1 - chkuser)\r\n"
#define CHKUSER_SENDERFORMAT_STRING "571 sorry, sender address has invalid format (#5.7.1 - chkuser)\r\n"
#define CHKUSER_SENDERMX_STRING "511 sorry, can't find a valid MX for sender domain (#5.1.1 - chkuser)\r\n"
#define CHKUSER_INTRUSIONTHRESHOLD_STRING "571 sorry, you are violating our security policies (#5.7.1 - chkuser)\r\n"
#define CHKUSER_NORELAY_STRING "553 sorry, that domain isn't in my list of allowed rcpthosts (#5.5.3 - chkuser)\r\n"


I feel
#define CHKUSER_RESOURCE_STRING "430 system temporary unavailable, try again later (#4.3.0 - chkuser)\r\n"
is probably ok as it is.


Tonino


At 13.48 15/03/2005, you wrote:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 12:22:34 +0100, tonix (Antonio Nati)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Ciao Antonio,

first of all compliments for your work in this patch.

> I don't remember exactly, I studied a lot of documents and found same
> tables that lead me to that decision (to have a close correspondence to
> 5.x.x formats).

I think should be better a 550 reply as RFC 2821:

      550 Requested action not taken: mailbox unavailable
         (e.g., mailbox not found, no access, or command rejected
         for policy reasons)


-- Cris, member of G.U.F.I Italian FreeBSD User Group http://www.gufi.org/




Reply via email to