On Mon, 2008-12-08 at 10:32 +0000, Ian Eiloart wrote: > It seems to me that this supports Marc Perkel's claims. Note the use of
> "SHOULD NOT" rather than "MUST NOT", and the last sentence which talks
> about correcting "permanent" errors.
And there's the wonderful thing about RFCs... this clause can be read in
different ways. Focussing on the "human user" element:
> 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).
...which I took to mean "the person sending the mail can try to send it
again". This is not the same as treating a 5yz (permanent) result as a
4yz (transient) result, because transient results are designed to be
retried by the machines involved where permanent results require human
intervention to repeat the original command sequence - and even then
this is usually after they have changed something, so strictly speaking
it's *not* the original command sequence in those cases.
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough about that yesterday. In fact, I think
that clause isn't really clear about it in the first place, but the
"human user" part is the key IMO.
