Victor Duchovni wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 09:28:23AM -0500, KLaM Postmaster wrote:
>
>
>> I was thinking about something I wrote here a couple of days ago. A 450
>> mistake - isn't it?
>> Everything I have read to date seems to indicate that 4xx codes are
>> temporary conditions between SMTP endpoints. But as I am new to this I
>> started to wondering if I was correct in asserting that such response
>> messages should not as a rule get back to the sender.
>>
>
> They certainly get back to the sender if the condition persists "long
> enough" and the sending system gives up. The choice of "long enough"
> is up to the sending system.
>
So far, the only response I have seen to delayed email, has been a
warning about it being delayed and the system will keep trying. I do not
remember the warning containing any indication as to the cause of the
delay. But as I am an antique my memory may well be way off.
>
>> I came across this when I got a complaint that I had "bounced"
>> somebodies email with a 450 indicating the message was being delayed due
>> to greylisting. The sender received the following message in their inbox
>> "450 4.2.0 <he...@mumble.com>: Recipient address rejected: Greylisted,
>> see http://postgrey.schweikert.ch/help/mumble.com.html; from=<mumble>
>> to=<he...@mumble.com> proto=ESMTP helo=<smtp12.bis.na.blackberry.com>."
>> which seemed odd to me.
>>
>
> This is perfectly fine. Now figure out how long they kept trying and
> why their system does not succeed in getting the mail through your
> greylisting system.
>
>
First, an apology to Blackberry/RIM, I copied the wrong message into the
above and then forgot to munge the helo address :-[ .
Second, when I received the complaint I checked the previous months
logs, and could only find one attempt at delivery had ever been made.
The system saw a new sender and greylisted them, at that point they
seemed to have given up trying.
