Re: balsa+libesmtp bug

[Carlos Morgado <chbm chbm nu>]

On 2001.05.04 15:14:36 +0100 Brian Stafford wrote:
> On Fri,  4 May 14:37 Carlos Morgado wrote:
> 



> 
> | there should also be more feedback to the user about recipients with
> | 5xx
> | errors and possibly abort the send and move the message back to
> | draftbox 
> | in that case.
> 
> Agreed.  This is more a case of missing functionality rather than
> a bug.  Recipients with 5xx are most likely due to domain names that
> the MTA cannot find an MX or A record for.  In that case the recipient
> may need to be corrected for the message to proceed.
> 
> Having said that however, it is possible undeliverable recipients
> will be accepted and queued by the MTA which will subsequently send
> a non-delivery notification (bounce) when it fails to locate MX/A
> records for the recipient's domain.
> 

That is NotOurProblem(tm) :) and in fact we can't do anything about it
so once the MTA accepts the message for delivery we're in the clear
imho.

> The reason I don't like the idea of not sending to accepted recipients
> when others fail is that when transient (4xx) errors occur and
> two recipients are alternating between success and transient failure,
> sending the message at all may become unnecessarily difficult.
> 
Right. remember the status of each explicit recipient seems the 
best aproach. however, do we treat To: and Cc: equaly ? that is, 
do we send to Ccs if a To adress fails ? Rationale is, Cc: are people
who should also get the message but are not the primary recipients, so
should them get it if the primary recipient(s) can't ? 
is there any rule ? any unspoken rule ? opinions ? :)

-- 
Carlos Morgado - chbm(at)chbm(dot)nu - http://chbm.nu/ -- gpgkey: 0x1FC57F0A
http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/ FP:0A27 35D3 C448 3641 0573 6876 2A37 4BB2 1FC5 7F0A
Software is like sex; it's better when it's free. - Linus Torvalds