On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 10:42:22PM +0100, Stephen Gran wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, Thomas Bushnell BSG said:
> > And finally, if we don't care about standards conformance, I have said
> > that a good second-best is to document exactly what our requirements
> > are, rather than burying them in apparent secrecy.
>
> What standards, exactly? Can you be specific? I have seen you assert
> this several times, but I see nothing in the RFCs preventing a site from
> saying it has a temporary local problem when it doesn't.
Even worse, there's nothing preventing a site from saying it has a
temporary local problem when it _does_. Thus, if your mail server
can't handle retrying, it will drop mail every time something is not
in perfect working order. And hardware or network failures are
something to be expected.
Any legitimate server must support retrying. For any reason.
--
1KB // Microsoft corollary to Hanlon's razor:
// Never attribute to stupidity what can be
// adequately explained by malice.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
