On 27 Jan 2012, at 14:17, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 27.01.2012 20:08, schrieb Mailing Lists:
I was curious, is it possible to create custom error messages? For
example when I get a bounce back error:
----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
b...@test.com <mailto:b...@test.com>
(reason: 550 5.1.1 <b...@test.com <mailto:b...@test.com>>: Recipient
address rejected: User unknown in virtual
mailbox table)
(expanded from: b...@test.com <mailto:b...@test.com>)
Want it to be something like...
You received b...@test.com <mailto:b...@test.com> in error (reason:
550 5.1.1).
If you don't know what this error means, please visit
http://www.test.com/550.html
^ Keep it simple... any suggestions or direction will be greatly
appreciated.
to say it not polite: it is idiotic to remove "User unknown"
That's debatable. However, it is explicitly allowed by RFC5321 and its
ancestors.
See http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5321#section-4.2
as example we are doing fully automated bounce-managment based on
/var/log/maillog and remove adresses from ALL tables of all customers
which contains "newsletter" in the table-name and having a field
"email"
If you relied on the text in that way in an SMTP client, it would
violate a "MUST" statement in RFC5321.
FWIW, I believe I've used the word "idiotic" in fighting against the
creation of such ill-conceived tools. It is unfortunate that you did not
take the advice of the relevant RFC's before deploying and becoming
reliant on such an intrinsically broken tool that is destined for a
permanent state of needing maintenance.
it is hard enough to cover most of the stupid versons of "user
unknown"
out there currently and this should not be raised
use "smtpd_reject_footer" for additional messages
___________________________________
why i am not polite here is this "blacklist" combined with a
"whitelist" of all sorts of "disk full" and "quoza reached"
and i have no understanding for people who wants changing
default messages which can automatically processed
Since maillog lines contain the failed command, the standard reply code,
and (if it exists) the extended DSN code, there should be no problems
identifying rejections that should be treated as "User unknown"
responses if the server sending the response intends that state to be
detected. In short: in reply to RCPT, '550' should be treated as "User
Unknown" unless it is followed by a standard enhanced status code other
than '5.1.1' (which should be considered as an unequivocal and
authoritative statement that the addressed mailbox is nonexistent.)
With other enhanced status codes there may be some circumstances where
it is reasonable not to scrub an address from a mailing list in reaction
to one rejection, but the standard enhanced status codes exist precisely
to save the mail environment from the proliferation of tools that try to
interpret the text part of SMTP replies as the SMTP standard insists
that they must not. See RFC3463, RFC5248 and their references for
details on the standard codes and their meanings.
