RFC 5321, indicates the correct code for too many recipients is code 452. It also notes that some old servers might also return 552 due to an error in an older RFC. Both codes should be treated as a temporary error indicating that the number of recipients has exceeded the limit for the server.Andre
On 4.12.24 21:05, John Levine via mailop wrote:
Hi John,
> All of the instructions for setting up mail at Google say to change the MX
> first
> before you've set up any mailboxes, which makes no sense -- how will it know
> what to do with the mail?
>
> Can someone who's done this before give
Hi,
other systems like Mox had a similar issue:
https://list.mailop.org/private/mailop/2024-November/029764.html
Fix for this was also to disable session tickets. Since more than one MTA is
affected, feels like MS might be doing something wrong here.
Winni
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP d
On Wed, Dec 04, 2024 at 09:13:01AM +, Winni Neessen via mailop wrote:
> other systems like Mox had a similar issue:
> https://list.mailop.org/private/mailop/2024-November/029764.html Fix
> for this was also to disable session tickets. Since more than one MTA
> is affected, feels like MS might
Hello,
2024年12月4日(水) 18:41 Viktor Dukhovni via mailop :
> On Wed, Dec 04, 2024 at 09:13:01AM +, Winni Neessen via mailop wrote:
>
> > other systems like Mox had a similar issue:
> > https://list.mailop.org/private/mailop/2024-November/029764.html Fix
> > for this was also to disable session t
Hi,
I was wondering if anyone has experienced a similar issue and was able to
fix it, or if you have any tips on how to escalate a ticket in Outlook.com.
For the past year, our IPs have been getting blocked every 2–3 months by
Outlook.com. What happens is:
1) Start getting the error "550 5.7.1 Un
Hi everyone,
I was wondering if there was a standardized limit, or a "common sense" limit on
how many (valid) RCPT command a client can send. If they want to send an email
to a thousands recipients that are on the same MX server, would they be able to
do that in one session or would they have t
On Wed, Dec 04, 2024, Cyril Nicodeme via mailop wrote:
> I was wondering if there was a standardized limit, or a "common
> sense" limit on how many (valid) RCPT command a client can send.
You could check the RFCs, e.g.,
RFC 5321 SMTP October 2008
4.
On 12/4/24 12:00 PM, Cyril Nicodeme via mailop wrote:
Hi everyone,
I was wondering if there was a standardized limit, or a "common sense"
limit on how many (valid) RCPT command a client can send. If they want
to send an email to a thousands recipients that are on the same MX
server, would t
On Wed, Dec 04, 2024 at 12:22:20PM +0100, Renaud Allard via mailop wrote:
>
>
> On 12/4/24 12:00 PM, Cyril Nicodeme via mailop wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I was wondering if there was a standardized limit, or a "common sense"
> > limit on how many (valid) RCPT command a client can send. If t
S 3150 is a throttle block, possibly related to IP reputation classification.
It should automatically expire on its own, and is generally caused by sending
too much traffic too fast.
Usually.
But I no longer work in that particular area, so can't be of any further
assistance.
Aloha,
Michael.
On 12/4/24 09:45, Viktor Dukhovni via mailop wrote:
No, not a "421", since that would normally also be a connection abort,
and none of the recipients would get the mail.
What do you think about a 450 4.2.1?
Rather, the correct handling is to softfail the excess recipients
and accept the initi
I have been hosting mail for my wife's church, and they want to move it to
Google Workspace. There is one address that goes to a real mailbox here that's
picked up by IMAP, and a few others that forward to other addresses.
All of the instructions for setting up mail at Google say to change the MX
On Wed, Dec 04, 2024 at 07:23:07PM -0700, Andrew Barker via mailop wrote:
>RFC 5321, indicates the correct code for too many recipients is code
>452. It also notes that some old servers might also return 552 due to
>an error in an older RFC. Both codes should be treated as a temporary
On Wed, Dec 04, 2024 at 08:01:34PM -0600, Grant Taylor via mailop wrote:
> On 12/4/24 09:45, Viktor Dukhovni via mailop wrote:
> > No, not a "421", since that would normally also be a connection abort,
> > and none of the recipients would get the mail.
>
> What do you think about a 450 4.2.1?
We
15 matches
Mail list logo
