And unfortunately the friendlier they are, the less useful they usually are.
The ugly ones are the only ones that are useful, but for whatever reason, it's beyond MTA developers to start with friendly messages with a "Troubleshooting information below" that contains a useful transcript.
As a techie, I appreciate the info, but the reality is that unless you expect the sender to take some action, transient error messages aren't usually useful. We've scaled back the transient failures that we send, at most you get a single transient and single permanent error, and even still, I question the value of the transient error since the user can't actually do anything (and nor does forwarding it to support@ help). Of course, we also allow users to view the SMTP queue for all messages involving their account for those who care, so that might skew my viewpoint.
I'm not a fan of the current trend of using permanent error codes in SMTP for what might well be transient errors (DNS problems, for example), but at the same time, as a sender, I don't see any value in retrying more than 24 hours.
It's tough to balance user expectations though. -- Dave Warren http://www.hireahit.com/ http://ca.linkedin.com/in/davejwarren On 2015-12-10 10:43, Franck Martin wrote:
It also has to do with people not understanding DSN. Seriously they are ugly and hard to find the relevant information in them...
_______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
