Tomasz Ostrowski wrote: > But it is also within its rights to issue 4xx. And if it makes it > more reliable then why not?
Well, it's a matter of philosophy, I guess. I can't see sendmail.org accepting a patch for this. Look at it this way: Sendmail has every reason to assume that if an SMTP client has a broken implementation of the state machine on one message attempt, it probably will break on every attempt, so why tempfail? > This would not encourage the developers of broken servers to fix them > or administrators to migrate. But it could be better than tempfailing > after "data" because tempfailing "rcpt to" sometimes does not work - > it will not waste bandwidth. True; if bandwidth is a scarce resource, this could be an issue. It isn't for us, and I suspect it isn't for most people -- I doubt e-mail uses the majority of bandwidth at most organizations. Web browsing, P2P and FTP probably swamp e-mail. Regards, David. _______________________________________________ NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list MIMEDefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
