On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 09:19:41PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote: > I'm surprised you chose to introduce as a default an undefined > code point. RFC 5321 (and its predecessors) have pretty strong > language against use of new reply codes and the current IETF draft > specifies use of 550 in most cases (521 when a submission server or > relay declines to accept mail). See the last part > of section 4.1:
You must have been napping upthread.
--
Viktor.
