On 9/15/2010 10:56 AM, Tony Lambiris wrote:
My whole thing was, why send a 421 if the SMTP code returned from the
actual relay/mailhub is "5xx Account disabled." or some other 5xx
non-deliverable.
Right.
I will note that you haven't taken into account that the session might
have dropped, and
My whole thing was, why send a 421 if the SMTP code returned from the actual
relay/mailhub is "5xx Account disabled." or some other 5xx non-deliverable.
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 10:17 AM, Chris Lewis wrote:
> On 9/15/2010 3:51 AM, Peter J. Holzer wrote:
>
> I have a strong suspicion that the aut
On 9/15/2010 3:51 AM, Peter J. Holzer wrote:
I have a strong suspicion that the author meant to write
return(DENY, "Unable to queue message ($!)");
The new code is considerably better - works properly in the face of
temporary vs permanent errors from the backend server and provokes
retries
On 2010-09-15 00:14:10 -0700, Robert Spier wrote:
> Tony Lambiris wrote:
> > Thoughts on the following changes to smtp-forward? These diffs were taken
> > against the svn smtp-forward checked out yesterday.
> >
> > Thanks.
>
> What are your intentions with this change? It's very much
> not-backw
[resending and including the list]
Tony Lambiris wrote:
>
> Thoughts on the following changes to smtp-forward? These diffs were taken
> against the svn smtp-forward checked out yesterday.
>
> Thanks.
What are your intentions with this change? It's very much
not-backwards compatible as it cha
On Sep 14, 2010, at 10:45, Tony Lambiris wrote:
> Thoughts on the following changes to smtp-forward? These diffs were taken
> against the svn smtp-forward checked out yesterday.
I didn't check if the patch still applies; but we moved to git a while ago:
http://github.com/smtpd/qpsmtpd
