> > Ok, it's not strictly a protocol violation. >
> Right. On the other hand, nobody is compelled to accept a mail if
> their policy rules are against it. So long as they issue a
> protocol-correct rejection, honour is satisfied. The would-be sender
> can then contact the postmaster address, and negotiate the issue.
>
> (Which is why we have this file of blacklisted domains whose
> postmaster address is rejected, or persistently "temporarily" over
> quota.)
> This leads back into question how stricly we must follow the rfc, to not
allow us to get onto blacklist? Although this goes far beoynd my original
problem (my own disc controller as a mailer would propably never try to
comply about me to my postmaster, who I also am...), is it possible my
server would actualy get blacklisted because of having over-strict
interpretation of rfc, which would simply deny loosely-formulated incoming
connections before sender even had a chance to tell he's going to mail to
postmaster?
