Author: Peter Bowyer Date: To: Exim, Users Subject: Re: [exim] Retry on 550 errors
On 06/12/06, Drav Sloan <holborn-exim@???> wrote: > Peter Bowyer wrote:
> > > I couldn't agree more. 5xx errors are _permanent_. Whether you (the
> > > admin of a sending MTA) disagrees is totally irrelevant.
> >
> > Not in Marc's case - he has a specific arrangement with the owner of
> > the troublesome MTA. In effect, the destination MTA has moved within
> > Marc's admistrative domain, although he's not able to affect its
> > configuration.
>
> So why is this Exims issue?
Because he uses Exim. He's entitled to ask for features in his tool of choice.
> The "troublesome MTA" is the fault, and
> THAT alone should be remedied. Some fudge for Exim totally goes
> against the protocol standards, and is unnecessary given the fact
> that it is doing exactly what it is meant to be doing.
There are already countless ways in which the clueless can make Exim
non-compliant with a dozen different RFCs. If that were a critierion
for allowing a feature, there wouldn't be many features. Just because
there's a red button marked 'push me', the admin doesn't have to push
it.
>
> > In this narrow case, he has a valid requirement.
>
> I disagree. There is no requirement to break RFC when the problem
> should be resolved on the "offending" server.
He's operating in a closed domain. His network - his rules. Why
shouldn't he ask for support to achieve what he wants?
