ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [taugh.com-standards] Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-appsawg-nullmx-06

2014-09-04 18:27:22
The choice of 521 here seems rather unfortunate, and based on an
error the experimental RFC 1846.  Please consider 550 or similar.

That's part of the problem: None of the existing codes that can be returned 
in
response to RCPT TO are right for the job. 550 is a mailbox access error, 552
is a storage allocation error, 553 is an invalid mailbox error, and 555 is a
parameter problem. Out of all these 553 is probably the closest, but it is
still not quite right.

I share your opinion that anything that breaks is already broken, but
considering how widely used Postfix is, it might well be better
engineering to switch to a 553 code.  Topic already raised in
appsarea.

That's a fair point. I dislike having to make such accomodations, but the
reality on the ground is what it is, and needs to be considered.

                                Ned