Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id PAA03674; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 15:23:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cs.cs.utk.edu (bulk_mailer v1.10); Tue, 11 Aug 1998 15:22:33 -0400 Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (cf v2.9s-UTK) id PAA03599; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 15:22:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from resnick1.qualcomm.com (resnick1.qualcomm.com [206.139.85.98]) by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id PAA03578; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 15:22:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from resnick2.qualcomm.com (206.139.85.99) by resnick1.qualcomm.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server 2.1); Tue, 11 Aug 1998 14:22:12 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: resnick@resnick1.qualcomm.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <19980811060339.25365.qmail@cr.yp.to> References: <19980808111706.26738.qmail@cr.yp.to> <19980810145746.16873.qmail@cr.yp.to> X-Mailer: Eudora [Macintosh version 4.1a14-8.98] Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 14:22:11 -0500 To: drums@cs.utk.edu From: Pete Resnick Subject: Re: code 571? On 8/11/98 at 6:03 AM +0000, D. J. Bernstein wrote: >Pete Resnick writes: >> But my understanding from your initial >> message is that 571 *is* in use now by some implementations > >Not as far as I know. It's just some sysadmins misconfiguring sendmail. Isn't this the "as if" principle you keep reminding me of? If "571" frequently appears where a return code goes for in SMTP response, it doesn't make much difference if the cause of that return code is lousy programming or lousy configuration; we've now got a defacto standard return code out there in common use and we should document it. If what you mean is that it appears very *infrequently*, then it does not belong in 821bis because it is not of importance for interoperation. A note about dealing with the first digit properly will suffice. Which way to go is an empirical assessment. pr -- Pete Resnick QUALCOMM Incorporated Work: (217)337-6377 or (619)651-4478 Fax: (217)337-1980 or (619)651-1102