Re: [Exim] Reaction to rude 554 greeting

IPSE DIXIT Greg A. Woods:
[...]
I cut the rest of the post not because I agree with it, but to avoid
arguing excessively.

>As for those which do involve SMTP, well if the sender (or at least his
>or her postmaster) is savvy enough to figure out what's really wrong
>here, and if your idea of trying the next MX is the best course of
>action for this circumstance, then there's a very good chance that the
>mail can be re-routed to that other MX host, perhaps using the ancient
>fallback addressing form with a literal IP address: <user@???>
>or maybe even just as <user@???>.

I am sorry, but what's your problem with secondary MXes? They _are_
meant to be used for delivery for addresses like u@???. Changing the
address to attempt to deliver to a secondary MX, I am very sorry to
say, is unacceptable.
u@??? is not the same as u@1.2.3.4 or u@??? for any u,x,y,1,2,3,4,mx1.

Look, suppose the primary MX is not reachable for any reason, then
you would accept to deliver to MX1. Now, in this case MX tells me
that there is a mail system problem (the first two 5), what's wrong
if I try MX1, and, if I get another 554 (or any other 5XX), then stop.

Look, I do not really care if exim tries harder or not, I have never
encountered a server sending a 554 at greetings. But I cannot stand
dogmas and I only intervened in the first place when Suresh started
talking of firewalls blockage and all that jazz.

I have quoted more evidence from the RFC in my reply to Suresh.

Giuliano