In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
David Shaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I think it's a good idea, but (as I mentioned on another list) I don't
>think that hacking sendmail to accept the mail while also refusing the
>mail is a good idea. There are some really broken mail systems out there
>that might not accept a 5xx response at that point in the transaction.
Other people have speculated about this also.
Nonetheless, all I have at this point is speculation. Nobody has yet
shown me one living breathing example of an SMTP sending agent that
will go berzerk or do Bad Things if it gets a 5xx error after the DATA
phase of the transaction.
So I gotta treat it a lot like the Loch Ness monster... yea, maybe it
*does* exist, but I ain't gonna plan my weekend around it.
-- Ron Guilmette, Roseville, California ---------- E-Scrub Technologies, Inc.
-- Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/deadbolt/
-- FREE Web Harvester Protection - http://www.e-scrub.com/wpoison/ - Try it!
-- FREE DynamicIP Spam Filtering - http://www.imrss.org/dssl/ - TELL YOUR ISP!
