Hello,
On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 11:59:36AM +0000, Chris Lightfoot wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 11:58:19AM +0000, Ian Eiloart wrote:
> > --On 6 December 2006 11:28:34 +0000 Chris Lightfoot <chris@???>
> > wrote:
> [...]
> > > is the true one.
> > >Pretence of this type obviously does not actually make the
> > >error condition a permanent one.
> >
> > No, but nothing is permanent. Eventually, we'll all die when the sun goes
> > supernova. The difference in our interpretations is in the interpretation
> > of "permanent".
>
> yes. I am using the definition in the RFC; you are making
> something up according to your preference.
You are not. The concrete situation in which the quota of a mailbox is
full is not mentioned in RFC 2821, but here is the interpretation of a
permanent error (citing from chapter 4.2.1):
5yz Permanent Negative Completion reply
The command was not accepted and the requested action did not
occur. The SMTP client is discouraged from repeating the exact
request (in the same sequence). Even some "permanent" error
conditions can be corrected, so the human user may want to direct
the SMTP client to reinitiate the command sequence by direct
action at some point in the future (e.g., after the spelling has
been changed, or the user has altered the account status).
The quota full situation matches exactly this kind of permanent errors
mentioned here that can be corrected.
--
Gruss / Best regards | LF.net GmbH | fon +49 711 90074-411
Matthias Waffenschmidt | Ruppmannstr. 27 | fax +49 711 90074-33
mw@??? | D-70565 Stuttgart | http://www.lf.net
