🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <6NbxMbBx0+OzEATY@turnpike.com>,
Richard Clayton <richard@turnpike.com> wrote:

> In article <859517265snz.7876@grempc.demon.co.uk>, Graham E Kinns
> <news.7876@grempc.demon.co.uk> writes
> 
> >Andrew Clarke <andrew@REMOVE-THIS.plinth.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >>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.
> >
> >IMHO, to comply with 821, mail shouldn't be rejected until you know
> >who it's for.
> 
> Indeed, if you reject at MAIL FROM, some clients will resend :(
> 
> What is "correct" is currently being hashed out by the DRUMS working
> group - however, that won't change the installed base for some time

If I were to scan the body DATA for possible bounce targets during recipt 
of a message and get a hit, given that 554 is given as an allowable 
failure response to DATA, I suppose the correct way to bounce would be:

554 Transaction failed

sent after receipt of the <CR><LF>.<CR><LF> terminating the DATA.

If this is an acceptable approach, and if I were to bounce a message at 
that point, should the MTA handing over the mail to my server return a 
bounce notification to the sender? (I realise *should* and *will* are two 
very different entities in this case, but I am curious.)

All advice gratefully received.

-Alan.

-- 
Alan Staniforth ** alan@bones.demon.co.uk ** alan_s@cix.compulink.co.uk
"Meum est propositum/In taberna mori,/Ut sint vina proxima/Morientis ori."
       -- Anon.