Am 28.01.2012 15:45, schrieb Reindl Harald: >> 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.) > > and then came the real world! > > and no my development is not abstract, in such cases it is using the > real world as base how to act, you would not realize that the next > line si a non-existent address, i did and removed it > > postfix/smtp[16702]: A94FA601: to=<**@chello.at>, > relay=mx0.upcmail.net[213.46.255.200]:25, conn_use=47, > delay=4847, delays=4788/59/0.01/0.06, dsn=5.1.1, status=bounced (host > mx0.upcmail.net[213.46.255.200] said: 550 > 5.1.1 <**@chello.at> unknown recipient rejected (in reply to RCPT TO command))
forgot the "other than 5.1.1" example and yes i can be 100% sure that the masked address does no longer exists and receive newsletters since the person was fired last year Jan 27 10:21:47 arrakis postfix/smtp[17651]: 9B5099B: to=<***@orf.at>, relay=mx1.t-systems.at[212.166.96.46]:25, delay=0.22, delays=0.13/0.05/0.02/0.03, dsn=5.0.0, status=bounced (host mx1.t-systems.at[212.166.96.46] said: 550 #5.1.0 Address rejected. (in reply to RCPT TO command))
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
