Re: 4xx vs 5xx for spam rejects

Subject: Re: 4xx vs 5xx for spam rejects
From: Per Marker Mortensen (pmmfys.ku.dk)
Date: Mon Jan 10 2000 - 14:14:37 CST

• Next message: Wietse Venema: "Re: 4xx vs 5xx for spam rejects"
• Previous message: Marco d'Itri: "Re: Design for Multi-Server Multi-Domain System"
• Next in thread: Wietse Venema: "Re: 4xx vs 5xx for spam rejects"
• Reply: Wietse Venema: "Re: 4xx vs 5xx for spam rejects"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

From: Ralf Hildebrandt <R.Hildebrandttu-bs.de>
Subject: Re: 4xx vs 5xx for spam rejects
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 14:55:36 +0100

> Depends on WHERE the error was generated! If it's during a DNS lookup you
> might get 4xx. But since one of the later snapshots it's safe to say
>
> unknown_address_reject_code = 554
> unknown_hostname_reject_code = 554
>
> since in case of an soft error the return code is always 4xx.

Where is this documented? From what version does it work this way?

Yours

Per Marker Mortensen <pmmfys.ku.dk>
System Administrator, Ørsted Laboratory
Niels Bohr Institute for Astrophysics, Physics and Geophysics, Copenhagen

Office (HCØ): D210/D301
Officephone : 35320401/35320501
Mobilephone : 20413070
Homephone : 32876254

• Next message: Wietse Venema: "Re: 4xx vs 5xx for spam rejects"
• Previous message: Marco d'Itri: "Re: Design for Multi-Server Multi-Domain System"
• Next in thread: Wietse Venema: "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 Jan 10 2000 - 14:16:44 CST