Eduardo M KALINOWSKI wrote: > Marc Perkel wrote:
> > 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
> >
>
> If server A sends a message to server B, and server B replies with a 5xx
> code, but does not mean it, and so it should instead be treated (by
> server A) as a 4xx error, then you should fix server B, and not try to
> make A interpret B's reply differently.
Of course he should fix server B. But how does he know it needs
fixing? Either:
1. His angry client calls him demanding to know why their customers'
emails are bouncing (if they didn't just go to a competitor instead).
or
2. A buildup of emails intended (by reading the recipient addresses, not
by reading minds) for his client in his misconfiguration-catcher queue.
If I were Marc I would also want (2). Of course his client who
misconfigures their MTA to reject their own mail deserves a LART. But
what incentive does Marc have to deliver said LART? Answer: none.
He'll just lose business.
My suggestion to Marc is to pony up some money and pay someone to teach
exim to do what he wants. It seems obvious that he isn't going to get
what he wants for free.
