Tim Jackson wrote:
|
| No, that wouldn't be nice, it would destroy the difference between a
| permanent error and a temporary error. What's the point in permanent
| errors if mailservers just ignore them? The error could be for any number
| of reasons, and second-guessing it by automated means seems to me to be a
| particularly Bad Idea. It would only make any kind of sense if there was a
| very specific code which was defined by RFCs to mean "rejected purely on
| the basis that you look like a dialup" and you took action which changed
| solely that parameter, but there isn't.
|
| I know what you're trying to achieve, and it's understandable - but I
| don't think making Exim behave badly to get round the fact that you're on
| a dialup/ADSL which some people have blacklisted is a very good idea.
I can see your point, but perhaps you can see ours. For example, my
ISP's mail server (I'm on a cable modem) is SOO SLOW... I can LITTERALLY
send a message destened to my own machine and wait 30+ minutes for it to
be delivered. And NO, that is NOT because it is so heavily loaded. It's
because they have it set up so poorly, and because they INSIST on using
Exchange Server for their MTA. I have YET to see an exchange server that
has more than around 25 mail boxes that will process mail at a decent speed.
Yes a lot of people block dynamic IPs because spammers use them
frequently. I understand that. But when you don't trust your ISP's mail
server any farther than you can throw it, and they are the ONLY high
speed ISP you have access to, it does leave quite a problem. The
solution I have always used is my own mail server. I'm not saying that I
want exim to "ignore all 5xx errors till all possible hosts are tried."
I'm saying I would like to be able to say "In the event of a 5xx, try
delivering via THIS machine. If you STILL get a 5xx, mark the message
undeliverable."
It's not a feature everyone would need. And if I could drive it into the
iddiotic head of my cable company's CTO that offering static IPs, even
if they are charging for them, is a good idea that will not burn up
their pipe, I would not need it myself. But the fact is that the guy
they have in charge of their cable modem operations is a HUGE iddiot.
Having spoken with him before I can say the only way I can see him being
in his position is by being a member of the "good ol' boys club".
- --- Dan
