On Sun, 25 Mar 2001, Darren Mackay - Lists wrote:
> I received a response from the ISP and essentially they said they will not
> be changing their MTAs just because they received a few complaints every
> week (I assume from this that I am not the only person who has complained).
They don't have to change. Just fix what they've got.
> In a perfect world, all MTAs will completely conform to the relevant RFCs.
> But in reality, they don't. It would be nice if exim would attempt delivery
> using alternate routers / smarthosts rather than bouncing the messages on
> the first error though (any chance of this making it ito v4??)
While I agree with the poster who put up some financial arguments, it
appears that this particular case is troublesome. (Exim's previous
behaviour please some, not others; Exim's current behaviour has swapped
over.) There have been previous requests for options along the lines of
"after an SMTP command xxx treat response nnn as if it were mmm". I will
think about this general case. If I decide that that is too complicated,
I will consider at least the simple option "treat 5xx on connection as
4xx". Of course, it means that when one of your users mails to a host
that is never going to do anything other than give 5xx, the message will
sit on your server until it times out.
--
Philip Hazel University of Cambridge Computing Service,
ph10@??? Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714.
