On Mon, 17 Mar 2003 15:12:07 +0000 Giuliano Gavazzi <eximlists@???> wrote:
> 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?).
oops, nazi reference. this discussion is over per godwin's law.
however, Giuliano, you don't seem to understand the RFCs at all.
you fail to connect, or you get a 4xx, it's ok to go to the secondary MX.
5xx means quit now. that's it. end of story. that's what it's always meant,
so long as i can remember (my experience with SMTP goes back to 1982, so
that's how long i can remember.)
the only senders i'm familiar with who consistently respond to 5xx by going
to secondary MX hosts are spammers. i do see this happen all the time. but
then, spammers aren't overly concerned with RFC compliance.
richard
--
Richard Welty rwelty@???
Averill Park Networking 518-573-7592
Unix, Linux, IP Network Engineering, Security
