Hector Santos wrote:
DATA
+----------------------------------------------+
| | 250 | 45x | 55x |
|--------+-----------+------------+------------|
| 250 | DELIVER | MAY RETRY | NO RETRY |
RCPT |--------+-----------+------------+------------|
| 45x | MAY RETRY | MAY RETRY | NO RETRY |
|--------+-----------+------------+------------|
| 55x | NO RETRY | NO RETRY | NO RETRY |
+----------------------------------------------+
If somebody writes a "retry clarification" draft *and* the
proposal goes in this direction, please copy Hector's ASCII
art.
IMO his chart is incorrect: The RCPT 45X/DATA 55X case should be "MAY RETRY".
I also don't understand why the chart lists the second digits of responses. It
makes it seem like the second digit has to be a 5 or it doesn't apply. That's
incorrect as well.
SM's proposal is different: The second cell in the third
column could be "MAY RETRY" if there was another recipient
causing the DATA 5xx ...and if I understood it correctly.
No. It doesn't matter if there's another recipient or not. Once a 4yx goes back
to a recpiient as a RCPT response that recipient is no longer under
consideration by the server and no subsequent responses refers to them at all.
(I got this wrong yesterday, getting all wrapped around the second recipient
involvement issue, but SM, Tony, and others have shown me the error of my
ways.)
The single recipient example that best illustrates this is one involving
pipelining:
C: MAIL FROM:<a>
C: RCPT TO:<b>
C: DATA
S: 250 Sender OK
S: 452 Recipient over quota
S: 550 No valid recipients
This is a VERY commmon case, which if handled according to Hector's chart will
lead to a lot of incorrectly bounced mail.
SM's idea needs more rows to reflect eight scenarios of
"mixed" RCPT outcomes.
Nope, it doesn't.
Ned