Glenn Anderson wrote:
At 3:36 pm -0400 10/8/2008, Hector Santos wrote:
Nonetheless, I've provided a CLEAR more common than not case of mail
delivery problem with this interpretation of yours.
No you haven't.
Glenn at least acknowledge it.
No I didn't.
I have only acknowledged that not retrying the recipient that gets
delayed will cause mail delivery problems.
I expected your will be attempting to nak this. I don't how more
concise you couldn't been when I asked and you responded:
HS: Please explain why did user1 now lose out in getting
HS: the mail when it was a more valid 250 case and user2 was not?
GA: That would be entirely up to the receiving server. I am
GA: certainly not going to assume that there are no cases where
GA: this would happen, that could result in lost mail.
I will go on the record, not that it means anything, that this 4.2.5
interpretation is incorrect and does cause mail lost, clearing born
from the 8 year old gaffe in 2821 which allowed 5yz retries. I have no
doubt about it, and none of you wish to acknowledge.
In any case. Consensus by Osmosis was reached.
Done Here.
--
Sincerely
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com