On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 01:12:49PM +0100, Matthias Waffenschmidt wrote:
> 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.
Read the bit before the bit you quoted:
| A rule of thumb to determine
| whether a reply fits into the 4yz or the 5yz category (see below)
| is that replies are 4yz if they can be successful if repeated
| without any change in command form or in properties of the sender
| or receiver (that is, the command is repeated identically and the
| receiver does not put up a new implementation.)
-- the point about an over-quota error is that it is
reasonable to expect a retry to succeed without action by
either the sender or the administrators at the remote
site. (Note that ``properties of the sender or receiver''
refers to properties of the corresponding SMTP
implementations in that sentence.)
--
``I have a demonstration... but we'll leave it to the end because
I can't really carry on after it, as you will see.''
(Physics lecture, on nuclear weapons)
