Richard,
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Richard J. Sexton" writes:
> If there's some change I need to make to my MTA to make you happy
> I'd like to know what it is, but I'm still waiting for a response to
> this from a couple of days ago:
I'd appreciate an extract from your log files showing delivery, my
maillog was rolled over Mar 25 04:02:05 (Mar 24 21:02:05 your time)
and I can find neither message in it.
> Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 15:11:22 -0500 (EST)
> From: Tim Gibson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Richard J. Sexton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: cybercops
>
> Well,
>
> I can assure you that all nodes making any kind of SMTP traffic at
> IMC or connected downstream of IMC are some version of sendmail. If
> the good Dr. would be so kind as to actually read what's contained
> in RFC 821. I'm sure that he'll see that the correct response to a
> 450 error [requested mail action not taken because the mailbox is
> UNAVAILABLE] is up to the client. The mail server takes no action
> other than the generation of the error. The correct coarse of
> further mail action is the responsiblity of the client side
> software.
> The client side must make the decision to buffer in the spool and
> try again or to inform the user that the mail box doesn't exist.
That's what I am saying all along.
Make it stop sending with these funnies in the SMTP envelope!
> It is the fault of the good DR.'s mailer program for recieving the
> bounce. Sendmail DOES NOT create a bounce, the client side does.
I never talked about receiving any bounce.
el
