On 5 Dec, Matthew Byng-Maddick wrote:
> This blank line that you've quoted (and I assume it isn't a mistake)
No it is there and it certainly is a serious error in nameplanets MTA.
>> 553 listed as badmail
> Up to them. The error messages are for human consumption only, the MTA
> should only act on the error code given.
The "listed as badmail" is, IMHO, not a very good error message for
human consumption.
> No, it's a serious bug in the remote end, see my other explanation of
> this, and the idea that you should still hit the remote admin over the
> head with a large paper copy of RFC2821 and RFC2822.
I will try to get a mail to them some other way.
--
Göran Larsson hoh AT mitt-eget DOT com
