Philip Hazel <ph10@???> (Mi 06 Dez 2006 11:26:35 CET):
> On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, Chris Lightfoot wrote:
>
> > > The decision whether a failure is temporary or permanent is not up to
> > > you but up to the server that sends the response.
> >
> > only if it gets it right!
>
> "Right" is what the server's administrators want. Not what anyone else
> may think they want. (Of course, they may screw up their config so that
> the server doesn't do what they want, but that is their problem.)
>
> In our case, if our server sends a 550 for an overquota error, we want
> the message to be bounced back to its sender because we haven't been
> able to deliver it for several days. We don't want the sending server
> to retry - which would most likely just lead to another delay before
> bouncing (and waste resources in the process).
Anyway - what about implementing the fallback_hosts feature not for
temporary errors but for 5xx errors too?
The rationale: There's a mail server sending from non-rDNS-able address.
On most connections it works, but some reject this server with 5xx. In
this, *only* this case I'd like to route the mails to some friendly
smarthost...
(The smart host uses callout for recipient checks, so if the 5xx is
because of some other reason, it should reject the mail at SMTP time
already, thus refusing its smart service.)
Could please somebody explain me, why it's a stupid idea? ;-)
Best regards from Dresden
Viele Grüße aus Dresden
Heiko Schlittermann
--
SCHLITTERMANN.de ---------------------------- internet & unix support -
Heiko Schlittermann HS12-RIPE -----------------------------------------
gnupg encrypted messages are welcome - key ID: 48D0359B ---------------
gnupg fingerprint: 3061 CFBF 2D88 F034 E8D2 7E92 EE4E AC98 48D0 359B -
