Re: [Exim] Looking at Exim for anti-spam filtering

On exim-users ph10@??? wrote:
>On 2 Feb 2000, Lorens Kockum wrote:
>
>> [...] RFC 821 says data can
>> only get the permanent errors "exceeded storage allocation" and
>> "Transaction failed", but I can argue that storage space for
>> spam is 0 on my system :-)
>
>RFC 821 is very old, and does not describe today's world very well.

Agreed. It will be interesting to see what is supposed to be
better, though :-)

>personally I am quite happy to use
>
> 554 Transaction failed
>
>for errors after DATA. After all, that's what happened!

Ummm. Well, as I read it, the "transaction" is the sequence of
MAIL,RCPT,DATA, and "transaction failed" means that the sender
did not respect the lockstep of the SMTP protocol, like sending
DATA when all the RCPTs were rejected, or something like that.

But none of the two have the right meaning, so one or the other
is a minor point ... I suppose son of 821 will have something
better, that at least should not be difficult.