Re: Correct SMTP reply to bouce UCE?

Article View: demon.ip.developers

Article #554

Back to demon.ip.developers Previous Next

#554

From: Paul Colclough
Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 00:00

11 lines
1106 bytes

Dave {Reply address in.sig} (noone@llondel.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: > 
: > Or you could just give the stony failure code: 554 Transaction failed
: > 
: Perhaps an update to RFC821 to propose something totally different, so 
: you can have something like: 559 FOAD

Only one problem, corrupted people like myself instantly recognise such
ackronyms, and should'nt it be F.O.A.D? I use it regularly with people
expecting me to spoon feed them.

Technical Details

Message-ID: <5i3okp$9r@squiznet.demon.co.uk>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!unknown!not-for-mail

References: <333abfa1.2280046@news.demon.co.uk> <859947983snz@tsys.demon.co.uk> <860195797snx@llondel.demon.co.uk>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 10bb05,b0af67d698369aa5
X-Google-Attributes: gid10bb05,public
X-Google-Thread: 104dc3,b0af67d698369aa5
X-Google-Attributes: gid104dc3,public
From: paulc@squiznet.demon.co.uk (Paul Colclough)
Subject: Re: Correct SMTP reply to bouce UCE?
Date: 1997/04/04
Message-ID: <5i3okp$9r@squiznet.demon.co.uk>
X-Deja-AN: 230876129
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: squiznet.demon.co.uk
References: <333abfa1.2280046@news.demon.co.uk> <859947983snz@tsys.demon.co.uk> <860195797snx@llondel.demon.co.uk>
Followup-To: demon.ip.developers,demon.ip.support.os2
Newsgroups: demon.ip.developers,demon.ip.support.os2

Reply to Parent Message