Norman, > Noel J. Bergman schrieb: > > -1 > > > The handling of this condition as temporary was very intentional, and > > in no way accidental. This is a not uncommon problem. The DNS can be > > wrong, and later corrected. The problem is ascertaining whether a > > domain is non-existent for real (there is no registration record) or > > because of a temporary DNS configuration error. > > > > Consider the debate within the SPF council regarding whether or not > > NXDOMAIN was to be treated as a PermError or TempFail.
> This was not the final solution. See revision 478589 I am not happy with the change. As I read it, r478589 is a bit better only if the local DNS server is down. That's only one of several DNS related issues that can result in failure. Consider http://www.mhonarc.org/archive/html/spf-discuss/2005-05/msg00327.html. I do consider the author of that particular e-mail to wrong because the intent of the SMTP specification is to put a very high degree of reliability on the delivery of mail. We bias decisions to ensure delivery. But the point is for you to read the real-world examples of DNS failure given to him as examples. And, FWIW, I have seen similar errors and had mail lost by qmail that would not have been lost by JAMES. I am OK with optional filters for rejecting mail in-protocol if the MAIL FROM or even REPLY-TO domains are invalid (even temporarily), but I am *not* OK with hardcoding the change you are making to bounce mail because there is a transient DNS glitch on the delivery side. Do you understand now? --- Noel --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
