On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 06:10:13PM +0200, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Gilles Chehade <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > We're probably too conservative with mda errors but I would rather see > > tempfail/permfail solved by sysexits(3) than by substring of the error > > message :-/ > > > > Actually, I was thinking after I sent this that exit 555, or some > number, would be far better than an arbitrary prefix string. This way > we don't invent new standards and behaviors. That's also what exit > codes are for. I'll re code this and send a new patch. >
Please don't do that ! We have spent considerable time removing "custom" SMTP codes from the code base. Whatever you're trying to achieve can be achieved without resorting to tricks like that, I'm 100% sure about that. > > Can you explain what use-case you're trying to solve ? > > Rejecting certain types of messages (sort of spam but not quite) > without even accepting the envelopes to begin with. The "accept / send > error response" dance is too heavy. > I don't quite get that. At the MDA level, you're already far beyond the ruleset matching. -- Gilles Chehade https://www.poolp.org @poolpOrg -- You received this email because you are subscribed to mailing list: [email protected] To unsubscribe, send mail with subject: [[email protected]] unregister
