🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <DwAvzNCg4TRzEA$h@turnpike.com>,
Richard Clayton <richard@turnpike.com> wrote:

> In article <AF6AEC139668972BF@bones.demon.co.uk>, Alan Staniforth
> <alan@bones.demon.co.uk> writes
> 
> >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
[...]
> This of course does allow you to scan a great deal more for stop words
> and other giveaway features of mail you do not wish to receive. As it
> happens, in the circumstances that we generate a 554, we feel that
> having the server download the whole message before generating the
> rejection is a positive benefit.

Thanks for the thoughts, Richard.  That was roughly my reasoning - although 
the original thought came from thinking about the best way to deal with a 
message which had malformed RFC 822 headers.  It also occurs to me it 
offers a half solution to those who want to bounce postmaster mail - 
allowing an initial read before bouncing.

-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.