At 02:48 PM 6/20/01, Nick (Keith) Fish wrote:
> Encourage your customers to use non-broken MUA.
I think in fact that Eudora is not broken here (although the human
factors engineering could be improved upon perhaps). The problem behind the
problem was given. Another way to ask the perceived problem question
is ...
If I change my bad password auth response code in qmail smtp to give a
400 level message like 451 (Requested action aborted: error in processing)
rather than 553 (Requested action not taken: mailbox name not allowed)
so that Eudora users get a nice requeue (rather than giving up on that
outbound item in the face of a typo) am I
offending the protocol gods terribly? Systems attempting to relay through
my system will continue to retry for a while, but I'd think this could be
survivable.
This is a protocol server return code modification I am considering.
John
>(my original post...
Hello.
I received a fortune cookie today some here may like:
It is harder to ask the right questions than
to find answers for the wrong questions.
Lucky # 6,8,38,40,45
A perceived problem I am trying to solve is that sending mail from
eudora win 4.3 or 5.1 with AUTH enabled to a qmail server I administrate
results in unsent email in the outgoing eudora queue when the password
given is incorrect. Well, that's not the problem really. But since the
error code is 553, it results in a broken mail entry which will requires
manual requeue dexterity. The very users who can't type their password
are the ones who need to do this, but I fear they will not see the rcpthosts
error message and move on to some other tasks, mail never sent, thinking
it the message it on it's way (or with qmail, there already).
Any ideas on good things to try? I could modify the rcpthosts message
to be more "got the password wrong there buddy, or foiled relay attempt".
I'm wondering if a 400 level message might be better, since at least it
would requeue and succeed later with another future password prompt.
(non-users relaying attempts will then suffer return trips though - very bad?)
There it is. any wise thoughts here?
Thanks
John