ned+ietf-smtp(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com wrote:
delivery to the same server without user review of the message
and response and appropriate intervention.
And the behavior of Glen's MTA (at least as I understand it) is completely
consistent with this requirement. As is the behavior of our MTA, which is
itself the same as what I believe Glen has described.
Well, IMO its broken. :-)
You can't retry for USER2 and not USER1 with the erroneous idea that
DATA 5yz means a RETRY can be done when the specs clearly recommends
it SHOULD NOT. It doesn't make sense - Put another way, with this
broken method, the more legitimate USER1 loses out.
The fact is, is USER1 is suppose to get the make, the server will do a
DATA 250. USER2 is not going to get the message, and it continues to
allow you retry USER2 if you wish.
But your method creates a false illusion USER1 is going to get the
mail with a DATA 5yz. It will not. If USER2 is expected to get the
message on a retry, then why did USER1 get the same benefit?
It appears, at least with Glenn's MTA, it is assuming in a multiple
RCPT reply code scenario with DATA 5yz:
RCPT USER1 -> 250 -> DATA 5yz -> delivered
I believe Glen has stated this is not the case. If it is I agree it
would be a standards violation.
Correct. So why would you think
RCPT USER2 -> 450 -> DATA 5yz -> RETRY
not be a violation. If this WORKED, then user1 never gets his mail.
RCPT USER2 -> 450 -> DATA 5yz -> not delivered, MTA will retry.
This, OTOH, is correct. And completely consistent with the text from
2821bis you keep quoting over and over.
And I'll quote it again:
As
with temporary error status codes, the SMTP client retains
responsibility for the message, but SHOULD not again attempt
delivery to the same server without user review of the message
and response and appropriate intervention.
It clearly says the client "SHOULD NOT again attempt to delivery.."
Your MTA is completely wrong here and I proved why above. USER1 will
lose out on your message unless the SERVER violates the specs and
deliver to USER1 despite the DATA 5yz response.
> I have no idea what this means.
>
>> Am I wrong?
>
> Yes.
Well, unless you can explain why USER1 is not a victim here, I say I
am right and your MTA is not in compliance with the specification.
USER1 will lose here.
--
Sincerely
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com