Re: 2821bis consideration - New 2nd attempt Retry Strategy recommenda

On 2007-11-17 07:37:49 -0500, Hector Santos wrote:
> SM wrote:
> > It's technically incorrect.  It's not an incompatibility problem.  A 
> > sender should to be able to differentiate between a temporary rejection 
> > due to an error and one due to the receiver's policy decision. 
> Hi SM,
>
> But who says the z=1 in 45z is "error in processing."?
>
> There is nothing in the specs that officially states z=1 (3rd digit)
> technically means is a error in processing.
The 3 digits in an SMTP response code aren't independent. z=1 in 45z
means "Requested action aborted: local error in processing" (RFC 2821
says so), but that doesn't mean that z=1 for any other xyz means the
same. 

> IMO, log analyzers can not 100% depend on any 3rd digit to mean anything 
> specific.
>
> Also, to me, if we wanted to take it literally, error in processing 
> should be a permanent rejection idea.
Why? Temporary errors do occur.

> Why?  We had this discussion in length in regards when 55x or 45x is
> appropriate and I think we establish if the data is not going to
> change, providing the same input on new tries is not going change the
> state.
This is simply not true. Something on the server may have changed (maybe
somebody restarted the LDAP server which was down, or cleaned out the
full spool directory, or whatever) and then the same request by the
client can be processed successfully. This is exactly the difference
between 4xx and 5xx replies.

        hp

-- 
   _  | Peter J. Holzer    | It took a genius to create [TeX],
|_|_) | Sysadmin WSR       | and it takes a genius to maintain it.
| |   | hjp(_at_)hjp(_dot_)at         | That's not engineering, that's art.
__/   | http://www.hjp.at/ |    -- David Kastrup in comp.text.tex

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature