Message-Id: <v04000834b0055b3a60dd@[129.46.137.140]>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.95.970730114859.2948L-100000@eleanor.innosoft.com>
References: <SIMEON.9707301109.F@tp7.Jck.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 1997 14:01:09 -0700
To: Chris Newman <Chris.Newman@innosoft.com>
From: Randall Gellens <Randy@Qualcomm.Com>
Subject: Re: From the chair: 552 vs. 452
Cc: Detailed Revision/Update of Message Standards <drums@cs.utk.edu>

At 11:58 AM -0700 7/30/97, Chris Newman wrote:

>Does anyone object strongly to having the error remain 552?

(1) Isn't 552 also used for another error condition, message to large for
mailbox or some such?

(2) I know of servers which assume that 552 is a bug in the spec, that it
should be 452, and act accordingly as both an SMTP client and server.

(3) The typical response to an SMTP client to a 4xx code is to retry that
recipient later.  The response to a 5xx code is to generate a bounce DSN.
If 452 is issued, this behavor results in the Right Thing.  If 552 is
issued, the mail bounces.

I say it should be 452.


--
Randall Gellens       ||    Opinions are personal; facts are suspect;
randy@qualcomm.com    ||    I speak for myself alone
--

Never call a man a fool.  Borrow from him.