On 06/12/06, Drav Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Peter Bowyer wrote: > > > I couldn't agree more. 5xx errors are _permanent_. Whether you (the > > > admin of a sending MTA) disagrees is totally irrelevant. > > > > Not in Marc's case - he has a specific arrangement with the owner of > > the troublesome MTA. In effect, the destination MTA has moved within > > Marc's admistrative domain, although he's not able to affect its > > configuration. > > So why is this Exims issue?
Because he uses Exim. He's entitled to ask for features in his tool of choice. > The "troublesome MTA" is the fault, and > THAT alone should be remedied. Some fudge for Exim totally goes > against the protocol standards, and is unnecessary given the fact > that it is doing exactly what it is meant to be doing. There are already countless ways in which the clueless can make Exim non-compliant with a dozen different RFCs. If that were a critierion for allowing a feature, there wouldn't be many features. Just because there's a red button marked 'push me', the admin doesn't have to push it. > > > In this narrow case, he has a valid requirement. > > I disagree. There is no requirement to break RFC when the problem > should be resolved on the "offending" server. He's operating in a closed domain. His network - his rules. Why shouldn't he ask for support to achieve what he wants? Peter -- Peter Bowyer Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://www.exim.org/eximwiki/
