🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <333abfa1.2280046@news.demon.co.uk>
           andrew@REMOVE-THIS.plinth.demon.co.uk "Andrew Clarke" writes:

> Sorry for the slight cross-post...
> 
> I've quickly knocked together a little utility which works in
> conjunction with Alex Chapman's Rexx scripts for OS/2 to bounce spam
> email based on the MAIL FROM: command.
> 
> Looking over RFC 821 I see there are basically two error responses to
> this 500 and 501, neither of which seem to fit the bill.

If you allow the category `failure' you can have 552 as well.

>
> At the moment I'm sending a 501 with a comment to the effect that
> email from that host is banned as a matter of local policy.
> 
> However, I seem to remember reading somewhere that there was a
> specific reply to cover this, but I can't find it in 821 or 1123.  It
> shouldn't matter too much but I'd like to use the correct reply if it
> exists.

I would agree that a 55z code is the most appropriate reading rfc821,
(Appendix E).  This gives you the choice of 550-554.  I would actually go
for 550 due to the comment `Eg mailbox not found, no access'
                                                  ^^^^^^^^^
553 seems reserved for syntax errors (which could also be 501...)

Or you could just give the stony failure code: 554 Transaction failed
-- 
:sb)