John Levine wrote:
Easier to remember straw man:
[...]
ACK
In your answer, please consider RFC 2821 section 4.2.5,
particularly the suggestion to requeue the message in
the antepenultimate paragraph of that section.
It makes sense to consider section 4.2.5 in RFC 2821bis:
There was a bug in RFC 2821 (it had the 5xx blurb twice
instead of 4xx vs. 5xx). RFC 2821bis fixed this problem.
There might be a very minor "NOT" nit for John's AUTH48:
= As with temporary error status codes, the SMTP client
- retains responsibility for the message, but SHOULD not
+ retains responsibility for the message, but SHOULD NOT
= again attempt delivery to the same server without user
= review and intervention of the message.
A re-interpretation Hector's and SM's proposals could be:
Hector's table treats this as a MUST NOT. And SM's idea
could explain why it's only a SHOULD NOT.
Frank