Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id NAA05227; Wed, 31 May 1995 13:47:45 -0400 X-Resent-To: drums@CS.UTK.EDU ; Wed, 31 May 1995 13:47:43 EDT Errors-to: owner-drums@CS.UTK.EDU Received: from po8.andrew.cmu.edu by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id NAA05211; Wed, 31 May 1995 13:47:40 -0400 Received: (from postman@localhost) by po8.andrew.cmu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA13616 for drums@CS.UTK.EDU; Wed, 31 May 1995 13:47:28 -0400 Received: via switchmail; Wed, 31 May 1995 13:47:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hogtown.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Wed, 31 May 1995 13:46:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hogtown.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Wed, 31 May 1995 13:46:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from BatMail.robin.v2.14.CUILIB.3.45.SNAP.NOT.LINKED.hogtown.andrew.cmu.edu.sun4c.411 via MS.5.6.hogtown.andrew.cmu.edu.sun4c_411; Wed, 31 May 1995 13:46:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <8jn_hVu00WBwM0wcN6@andrew.cmu.edu> Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 13:46:09 -0400 (EDT) From: John Gardiner Myers To: drums@CS.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: RFC 821 problem list In-Reply-To: <9505311703.AA19737@snark.imsi.com> References: <9505311703.AA19737@snark.imsi.com> Beak: is Not "Perry E. Metzger" writes: > John Gardiner Myers writes: > > The 522 reply code identifies a *transient* condition--the error is > > likely to go away if the RCPT command is retried in a separate > > transaction. The condition should instead be assigned a 4XX reply > > code. > > That would break current systems, wouldn't it? Per RFC 1123 section 5.2.10, a sender-SMTP SHOULD test only the first digit of the reply code. Clients which do this will end up mis-handling the 522 condition, bouncing the mail immediately instead of queueing it for a future delivery attempt. I suspect that the number of current systems which both cannot correctly handle an unrecognized 4XX reply code and which do correctly handle 522 as a temporary failure condition is extremely small. -- _.John G. Myers Internet: jgm+@CMU.EDU LoseNet: ...!seismo!ihnp4!wiscvm.wisc.edu!give!up