Re: RFC3463, 450 reply codes, and 4.7.1 extended codes.

Valdis Klētnieks writes:
> Is 4.7.1 in fact useful as a temporary error in this case, or do we 
> risk the wrath of the RFC wonks if stuff deploys that uses that?
There is at least one other perfectly reasonable justification for 
sending 4.7.1:
    450 4.7.1 Authorisation server unreachable, please try again later

So the RFC is wrong - x.7.1 is useful as a temporary error too.

Arnt