|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
To: nanog@nanog.org Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 15:47:09 -0700 From: Matthew Black <black@csulb.edu> X-Original-To: nonog@nanog.,org In-Reply-To: <20070405210110.GX26862@mailchannels.com> Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 14:01:10 -0700 Ken Simpson <ksimpson@mailchannels.com> wrote: > James R. Cutler [05/04/07 16:30 -0400]: >> Todd makes my point exactly. As he notes, the rejection message >> tells me that the message was rejected by some system. It does not >> tell my why it was rejected. Thus, just like this message, it adds >> more to the noise to signal ratio! > > Has anyone ever thought of standardizing the 500-responses from the > DATA phase? For instance, maybe 571 could always mean "rejected > because of the spam filter". > > If there was a standard for these response codes then maybe clients > like Microsoft Outlook could do something useful with the error > message. > > Regards, > Ken I had a good chuckle after reading your message. It's a great suggestion BUT... Microsoft products already ignore 5xx responses. From what I've seen, Outlook and Exchange will indefinitely retry a message after receiving a 5xx error. Outlook keeps the message in the user's PersonalFolders/Outbox for subsequent delivery attempts when you hit Send/Receive. We've seen lots of clients here attempt to send the same message every minute for weeks when the message exceeds our message size restrictions. Have they recently fixed this or released patches for all older product versions? Best regards, matthew black network services california state university, long beach 1250 bellflower boulevard long beach, ca 90840-0101
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |