Re: [exim] Exim Development

Marc Perkel wrote:
>
> Graeme Fowler wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>> Graeme
>>
>>
>
> There's another issue here that supersedes the RFCs. If the recipient
> server intends to reject the message then I agree. However if the
> recipient server is a customer of mine and I know for sure based on the
> response code that the rejection is in error, that it was unintended,
> and that the customer would want me to detect, report, and preserve the
> email then that's different. In my case I know that if I forward email
> to the customer and I get a 500 - Relaying Denied error that is not what
> the customer really wants to happen.
>
> My point - if the server replies with 550 but is doing so in error -
> that's different.
>

We seem to go throught this exercise at annual intervals.

Exim should be given the ability to ascertain 'intentions', read minds,
if you will.

Usually at some point, a request for a pony is injected into the thread.

AFAICS, no pony has ever actually been delivered. Nor appeared on its
own. Nor even passed through.

Which leaves us with a mystery, does it not?

Bill