> On 5/11/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > IMHO when the limit is reached, we should either (soft fail) > > > listen to everything and ignore the data as you describe > > > above, or (hard fail) kill the connection. Right now what we > > > does not make a lot of sense, since we haven't reduced bandwidth.
I think the RFC mandates a soft-fail - ie. error response after data has finished. > > > > I think that the correct behaviour is to ignore the rest of the message. > > > > If we kill the connection then the server will retry to send the message > > later (for most MDA probably at least 10 times in 5 days) and > so they will > > use much more bandwith. Yes, that will happen! > Sorry, forgot to mention one point... that the size limit should be > annouced in EHLO (if it's not there now, it should and I think a > higher priority that the behavior here). Since this is dealing with a > remote client that is ignoring or violating what they're told in EHLO, > I could see a aysadmin wanting to go either way. It already announces this. However, there is no rule that clients must use the size command, or that the size they send must be correct, or that they even use EHLO! I think that is it important for james to be standards compliant. I'm not sure if the current code would produce any serious problems, but i suspect the lack of a resetState() call may effect the next email in the same session - ie the next MAIL command will get a response to say "already specified sender", and the recipients of the first failed message will get a copy of the second message. Daniel. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
