|
Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email hr@neohapsis.com |
Re: 4xx vs 5xx for spam rejects
Subject: Re: 4xx vs 5xx for spam rejects
From: Michael Sobolev (mss
transas.com)
Date: Mon Dec 20 1999 - 07:39:23 CST
- Next message: Ralf Hildebrandt: "Re: Basic questions"
- Previous message: Ari Arantes: "Basic questions"
- In reply to: ibrahim khalifa: "Re: 4xx vs 5xx for spam rejects"
- Reply: Ralf Hildebrandt: "Re: 4xx vs 5xx for spam rejects"
- Reply: Wietse Venema: "Re: 4xx vs 5xx for spam rejects"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Mon, Dec 20, 1999 at 08:29:45AM -0500, ibrahim khalifa wrote:
> 4yz = Something went wrong, but try again later it might work then.
> 5yz = Something went wrong, don't try again later, it will probably not
> work then either.
Thanks, I was that in RFC821 (IIRC).
> So you are telling them to try again later, and they do as you say, what's
> the problem?
Why the default value for rejecting spam is 4xx and not 5xx?
-- Mike
- Next message: Ralf Hildebrandt: "Re: Basic questions"
- Previous message: Ari Arantes: "Basic questions"
- In reply to: ibrahim khalifa: "Re: 4xx vs 5xx for spam rejects"
- Reply: Ralf Hildebrandt: "Re: 4xx vs 5xx for spam rejects"
- Reply: Wietse Venema: "Re: 4xx vs 5xx for spam rejects"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Mon Dec 20 1999 - 07:49:00 CST