On 07 Apr 2003 10:54:00 +0200
list-ietf-antispam <list-ietf-antispam(_at_)faerber(_dot_)muc(_dot_)de> wrote:
J C Lawrence <claw(_at_)kanga(_dot_)nu> schrieb/wrote:
On Sun, 6 Apr 2003 18:19:26 -0400 waltdnes <waltdnes(_at_)waltdnes(_dot_)org>
wrote:
Then fer-cryin-out-loud, hold off on the "OK" response for a few
seconds and wait till the email is accepted. If it isn't, issue the
appropriate 5xx code after DATA:.
And when the message turns out to be addressed to an alias or forward
which points outside that MX'es domain?
There's no reason why it could not work in this situation: You hold
off the "OK" until you know that the message has been delivered,
delivery has failed /or/ a timeout has been elasped.
Eeek! So we have no secondary MXing structure and a requirement for a
continuous TCP session from the sender, bouncing thru intermittent MTAs
until it reaches a final destination MTA being required before a message
can be considered fully processed by any intervening node. No. Not
gonna happen. Quite literally can't happen in more than a tiny
percentage of cases.
Or the system that handles mail spooling (final delivery) is not the
same as the recipient MX (almost always the case for corporates), and
reponse time from the spool machine may exceed an hour (seen this
quite commonly during mail bursts)?
In this case you could configure your system to temporarily reject
mail from outside until the spool machine responds timely again.
So external systems engage in polling loops based on internal processing
criteria which they have no insight into? Ouch. You've just sent
delivery and receipt expense and overhead for an SMTP transaction into
overdrive.
--
J C Lawrence
---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas.
claw(_at_)kanga(_dot_)nu He lived as a devil, eh?
http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg