At 14:22 +0000 2003/03/17, Drav Sloan wrote:
>Agreed also. At the end of the day, peoples lazy attitude to a remote
>mailer giving a _permanant_ error, and 'automatically' going off and
>trying seconday MXes is seen as abuse in my eyes, and is likely to
>have you blacklisted.
Here we go again. The 'fascist' attitude... (does this work for
mailing lists, or just for usenet?).
>The 'justifying' by snipping bits of RFC out of context doesn't
>hold water for me. A 5xx serier error is a permanat error, full
>stop. No if's no buts, not 'oh in this senario', NO. A 5xx should
>cause a bounce, and it's up to the SENDING user to decide on the
>action to take _manually_. Fudging exim to make it non-RFC, or be
>totally ignorant of 5xx codes seems like a bad avenue to take;
>because then all sorts of anti-RFC crap will end up in what Philip
>has strived to be an RFC complient mailer.
This makes me smile, short of attaching the whole of the RFC, I do
not see how much more in context I should have put it. I must say
that I am not surprised at this type of reaction, where people repeat
some dogma without supporting it with evidence, it comes out of the
same sort of slack attitude that makes people <be nice today>...
Giuliano (making new friends..)
