At 13:32 +0000 3/2/00, Philip Hazel wrote:
>> The session transcript is:
>>
>> >>> RCPT To:<[user@domain]>
>> <<< 550-Open realy - see ...[ORBS]
>> <<< 550 mail from [IP] rejected: administrative prohibition
>>
>> Fairly common I think.
>> But just the next line says
>>
>> 550 <[user@domain]>... User unknown
>
>That is because the sending MTA thinks it knows what 550 means and adds
>this incorrect information. Even good old RFC 821 allows for different
>uses:
>
> 550 Requested action not taken: mailbox unavailable
> [E.g., mailbox not found, no access]
>
>The revision of 821 (currently in preparation) says
>
> 550 Requested action not taken: mailbox unavailable
> (e.g., mailbox not found, no access, or command rejected
> for policy reasons)
And besides, having declared the sending machine to be naughty, it wouldn't
be that unreasonable to lie to it about having the addressee (although
that's not what's happening). Why let a name be harvested?
--John
--
--
John W. Baxter, Port Ludow, WA, USA jwbaxter@???
I'm trying to think, but nothing happens.
