On Wednesday 27 July 2005 14:37, Matthew Byng-Maddick wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 11:20:51AM +0100, Adam Funk wrote:
> > A means of trapping these rejections and handling them in customized
> > ways -- rather than bouncing them all indiscriminately -- would also
> > be useful for my problem ("Automatically dropping back to "smarthost"
> > when relaying is rejected?").
>
> *Bzzzzzzzt* Misunderstanding of the meaning of a 5xx error code. Try
> again.
I apologize for some of my previous comments and terminology and do not
wish to get involved in further flaming. I am just trying to route mail
directly when possible and through my ISP's server when forced to do so.
> Described in detail in S4.2.1 of RFC2821
> (http://www.rfc.net/rfc2821.html#s4.2.1). Note the need for a HUMAN to
> get involved at this point.
The standard was written before this kind of blacklisting was used, and
many mailrouters use the same error codes (especially 550) to mean both
"this mail is wrongly addressed" and "this mail would be acceptable if
routed indirectly". Unfortunately for the foreseeable future we have to
live with this ambiguity.
The feature I would like to see would not indiscriminately ignore 5xx
codes but allow an Exim configuration to check the text of the error
against some regexp (e.g. "blacklist|dynamic") and in case of a match
pass the message and address combination in question on to the next
router (for the smarthost).
