This one time, at band camp, Thomas Bushnell BSG said: > So the meaning of 4xx is "temporary local problem". Sending that when > you don't have a temporary local problem is a violation, right there. > Must the standard repeat after every sentence, "oh, and don't lie".
Actually, that's just the error message most MTA's give out. The RFC has finer grained meanings for the range of 4xx messages. Would you be happier if greylisting gave back a 451 (error in processing)? This is factually true - processing began, but one of the preconditions failed. That is not a lie. You might want to go back and reread the RFCs about all of this. Most of what you are saying isn't actually in the RFCs, but is part of the mythology that has grown up around them. Try to find 'be liberal in what you accept ... ' in RFC 2821. Notice also that local site policy _always_ trumps the RFC, but with a note to the effect that you _should_ (not must) take care to not violate interoperability when implementing site policy. I would argue greylisting doesn't violate interoperability. But maybe you have another assertion. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- | ,''`. Stephen Gran | | : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `' Debian user, admin, and developer | | `- http://www.debian.org | -----------------------------------------------------------------
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
