On Mon, Feb 26, 2007, Eric A. Hall wrote:
Consider a scenario where the post-data response block looks like this:
353 detailed responses follow
250 lover(_at_)example(_dot_)com may accept the message
550 fighter(_at_)example will not accept the message
421 my disk disappeared... please try again later
....
Actually it seems that SMTP clients should generally treat the
per-recipient response codes as deferred RCPT TO responses, and to
essentially reuse the existing logic for failures in particular. This has
Yes, the logic must be identical to the handling of the case without
"deferred RCPT responses". Anything else would cause an additional
implementation hurdle (and it would probably be hard to explain
why you want different semantics).
the benefit of simplifying implementation logic a bit and seems to cover
most of the corner cases. Does anyone disagree with this?
Not me.