John Levine wrote: > Easier to remember straw man: [...] ACK > In your answer, please consider RFC 2821 section 4.2.5, > particularly the suggestion to requeue the message in > the antepenultimate paragraph of that section.
It makes sense to consider section 4.2.5 in RFC 2821bis: There was a bug in RFC 2821 (it had the 5xx blurb twice instead of 4xx vs. 5xx). RFC 2821bis fixed this problem. There might be a very minor "NOT" nit for John's AUTH48: = As with temporary error status codes, the SMTP client - retains responsibility for the message, but SHOULD not + retains responsibility for the message, but SHOULD NOT = again attempt delivery to the same server without user = review and intervention of the message. A re-interpretation Hector's and SM's proposals could be: Hector's table treats this as a MUST NOT. And SM's idea could explain why it's only a SHOULD NOT. Frank
