Patrick von der Hagen <patrick@???> writes:
> But second, I'd expect exim to detect a timeout and react accordingly.
> Since TCP is no stateless connection, the sending of a 250-message to
> accept a mail should return an error-code.
Yes, you're right. Still (correct me, if I'm wrong), for me this RFC
refers to situatins where there is a timeout caused not by a counter
of some kind, but rather by a change in external conditions (link
congestion, packets being dropped, NAT bindings having expired etc).
Notice, that the longer the period between final dot and 250 is, the
bigger possibility for such a situation to occur. And so it's possible
that your exim writes 250 return code to the TCP socket, indicating
that it's accepted the message for delivery (and, according to RFC(2)821
it must have considered the message accepted and prepared for further
processing. Still, because of a netwokr congestion this 250 accept code
could never reach the sending end, with actual timeout happening
several seconds or minutes leter.
--
(-) Łukasz Grochal lukie@???
(for PGP key visit:)
_____________________________________________ http://www.rotfl.eu.org/ __
... all in all it's just another rule in the firewall. /Ping Flood/
