[ On Friday, November 12, 1999 at 11:10:48 (-0500), Tabor J. Wells wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: [Exim] Exim's handling of 452 rejections
>
> On Fri, Nov 12, 1999 at 10:48:32AM -0500,
> Dave C. <djc@???> is thought to have said:
> >
> > Getting back to the original case of this, my personal beleief is that
> > "user mailbox full" should result in a 5xx error anyway. If my user is
> > trying to send mail to your user, and you have imposed a quota on your
> > user, why the heck should *my* MTA have to serve as a queue for your
> > over-quota user? Either say 5xx and let my user call yours on the phone
> > to complain about it, or accept the thing and queue it on YOUR server
> > until they clear out their mail.
>
> Funny, I'd say the exact opposite. Being over quota is a transient error
> and should be treated as such IMO.
From a protocol point of view an error condition that is under the
control of a *user* (i.e. not an administrator) is *not* transient.
I've got a client where a half dozen mailboxes have been over quota for
many months despite many warnings to the users.
I guess you could say that I could clear those mailboxes myself, but
that's not very good etiquette. I'd much sooner delete the user
entirely and then of course their mail really would bounce! ;-)
However I certainly don't want to have to handle complaints from users
who's mail bounces after 5-7 days of unsuccessful delivery attempts
either. The users I know really do want to see an immediate bounce if
there's a problem like this.
--
Greg A. Woods
+1 416 218-0098 VE3TCP <gwoods@???> <robohack!woods>
Planix, Inc. <woods@???>; Secrets of the Weird <woods@???>
