On Mon, 2008-12-08 at 10:32 +0000, Ian Eiloart wrote: > It seems to me that this supports Marc Perkel's claims. Note the use of > "SHOULD NOT" rather than "MUST NOT", and the last sentence which talks > about correcting "permanent" errors.
And there's the wonderful thing about RFCs... this clause can be read in different ways. Focussing on the "human user" element: > the human user may want to direct the SMTP client to > reinitiate the command sequence by direct action at some point in > the future (e.g., after the spelling has been changed, or the user > has altered the account status). ...which I took to mean "the person sending the mail can try to send it again". This is not the same as treating a 5yz (permanent) result as a 4yz (transient) result, because transient results are designed to be retried by the machines involved where permanent results require human intervention to repeat the original command sequence - and even then this is usually after they have changed something, so strictly speaking it's *not* the original command sequence in those cases. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough about that yesterday. In fact, I think that clause isn't really clear about it in the first place, but the "human user" part is the key IMO. Graeme -- ## List details at http://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/