--On 6 December 2006 11:59:36 +0000 Chris Lightfoot <chris@???>
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.
The RFC says: " If the mailbox specification is not acceptable for
some reason, the server MUST return a reply indicating whether the
failure is permanent (i.e., will occur again if the client tries to
send the same address again) or temporary (i.e., the address might be
accepted if the client tries again later)."
Now, if I know that the user is always going to generate an over-quota
error (or will do for say the next six months which is well within most
people's retry limits), then a 550 is appropriate.
This paragraph is also worth reading:
"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)."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Can you point us to the RFC that says an over quota error MUST yield a 4xx
code, please? (2)821 says nothing. 1893 only says "should", it isn't
prescriptive.
--
Ian Eiloart
IT Services, University of Sussex
