On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 11:24:11AM +0000, Ian Eiloart wrote:
> --On 6 December 2006 11:02:42 +0000 Chris Lightfoot <chris@???>
> wrote:
> >On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 10:53:51AM +0000, Graeme Fowler wrote:
[...]
> >no, it's a temporary error, because a future attempt with
> >the same sender/receiver/data stands a reasonable chance
> >of success without there being any oeprator intervention
> >-- see the description in the RFC.
> >
>
> Unless, of course, the local operator knows different, and has decided to
> advertise the fact through issuing a 550 response.
it is of course possible that you / Philip are using a
different meaning of the words `over' and `quota' to the
one I am!
But I don't think that's the case here; I think your
previous explanation -- that Philip has convenient to
suppress external mailer activity by advertising a
temporary error condition as permanent -- is the true one.
Pretence of this type obviously does not actually make the
error condition a permanent one.
--
``Nothing says `unprofessional job' like wrinkles in duct tape.''
(seen on the Internet)
