-----Original Message-----
Friday, May 7, 2004, 3:44:13 PM, a.flavell@??? wrote:
> On Fri, 7 May 2004, Andy Fletcher wrote: >> It would be useful to be able to define different actions based on
>> which part of the transaction generated the 5xx - i.e. you could
>> choose to ignore the MAIL TO 5xx error, and continue with the
>> transaction, only halting on a 5xx at RCPT TO. > The response to RCPT under those circumstances is likely to be
> something like "503 Waiting for Mail command" or "502 Error: command
> not implemented", judging from the MTAs that I've tried it against. >> Admittedly this may not be of interest to everyone, but it provides
>> some flexibility around the problem of mail servers rejecting null
>> MAIL FROM when the RCPTO TO would actually be accepted perfectly
>> fine > Basically I think you'd need to have the callout machine start over,
> with a non-null envelope sender. *N.B* I'm saying this purely for
> the sake of discussion - I certainly DO NOT recommend it.
Yes, great point and something I (rather foolishly) overlooked. You'd
need to re-present the MAIL FROM as you say, but this time non-null. I
don't want to get into specifics too much, I'm no expert on the RFC or
Exim, but I'm trying to suggest there should be some flexibility -
such as re-presenting the MAIL TO with a valid sender if you want to
(or configurable to just use the alternative valid sender in the first
case, might make more sense).
