Franck Martin <Franck(_at_)sopac(_dot_)org> writes:
Can someone clarify the following?
Sure. The person with whom you're corresponding hasn't read the standards
that they're appealing to.
From: SYSTEM(_at_)usp(_dot_)ac(_dot_)fj
[mailto:SYSTEM(_at_)usp(_dot_)ac(_dot_)fj]
Sent: Tuesday, 6 August 2002 3:32
To: Franck Martin
Cc: SYSTEM(_at_)usp(_dot_)ac(_dot_)fj
Subject: Re: FW: Postfix SMTP server: errors from
maya.usp.ac.fj[144.120.8.5]
Hi Frank,
Well it all depends where the 552 code is issued and from my
understanding this is somewhat of a bug in the original RFC 821
specifictaion.
Sometimes 552 code means its a temporary failure and other time its a
permanent failure.
Wrong.
5yz Permanent Negative Completion reply
The command was not accepted and the requested action did not
occur. The SMTP client is discouraged from repeating the exact
request (in the same sequence). Even some "permanent" error
conditions can be corrected, so the human user may want to direct
the SMTP client to reinitiate the command sequence by direct
action at some point in the future (e.g., after the spelling has
been changed, or the user has altered the account status).
If it were a temporary code, it would be 4xx.
As you can see below, the "250 Ok" is issue and that is the reason the
mail is requeued after the it has failed because 552 code was issue
later on.
An earlier command succeeded and a later command failed. That doesn't
mean the message should be retried as if it were a temporary error. This
sentence basically makes no sense.
--
Russ Allbery (rra(_at_)stanford(_dot_)edu)
<http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>