> The intent of a 5xx response is to say "send me this again and I'll > reject it again".
> If a MUA tries resending the exact same message without modification > then its brain dead. Not all the time. In the case of an message with a single recipient, the only choice, if one has followed the RFCs *to the letter*, is to requeue the message unmodified. The 552 after the DATA command should still be interpreted as a 452, according to the quoted section of the RFC, and no substantive changes could be made to the envelope or body at that point (i.e., no recipients can be stripped off, etc.), so it amounts to a full requeue. > Sending it in multiple sessions to reduce the number of 'RCPT TO's > is an acceptable RFC compliant behaviour IMHO. My point is that 552s that don't relate to recipient count are not given special treatment in the RFC, though they are intuitively, to you and me and RITLabs, a special case due to command order. The RFC does not provide a mechanism for discriminating between "552" 552s and "buggy" 552s, though common sense may. So The Bat! is extended its logic beyond the RFCs, while Outlook is playing dumb; it could be argued that the RFC has not been sufficiently updated for stupid MS programmers, who don't have much intuition. Outlook is broken through laziness and inside-the-box rules, rather than *purposely* being written outside a published standard. At least this is what it looks like from here. -Sandy To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html List Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/ Knowledge Base/FAQ: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/
