Autor: Drav Sloan Data: Para: Jethro R Binks CC: exim-users Assunto: Re: [Exim] Feature Request - SOA email address
Jethro R Binks wrote: > I agree entirely; however in practice that doesn't always happen, because
> of faulty MUAs and faulty MTAs which don't report back SMTP level error
> messages, especially if it is a multi-line response.
That is the fault of the NON-RFC sending MTA (or the receiving MUA). Not
yours. You go by RFC and anyone else who doesn't, well tough. There is
reasons for the standards, and non standard hacks generally leave you
in world of pain.
> Even when they do, they are buried in a page of unintelligible MTA
> tech-speak that end users just don't understand - their eyes glaze over.
Shame, yes, but your fault? No. Just because other MTAs provide huge
confusion and problems for their users is NOT due to the fact you were
acting in a RFC complient manner. Auto responders and auto notifications
are satans spawn. They are evil!! ;)
> Here, I'm probably going to alter my SMTP reject messages to contain a URL
> on the first line which points to an appropriate page. At least this will
> be useful for those who have the courage to wade through the tech-speak to
> look for something useful, and may also get through to those whose MTA
> only reports the first line of a rejection message. I can't help much for
> those lumbered with an MTA that reports back little more than "it didn't
> work, Error 0xF0ADF0AD".
Yes, and as such thats their problem. Just dont be sucked into the
false idea that notifications make your MTA more 'friendly'. The
reality is that you have an MTA which has scamp regard to RFC and
generally will pollute the internet with rubbish.
> That being said, I don't feel I am responsible for the failings of such
> systems, so I don't let it worry me ...
Good-o, by all means try and be polite and helpful and contact people
with errors and issues by hand, if you feel that way inclined. If not
just let the standards set the precident and not some hack which is only
really relevent for a few people.
