From: /dev/rob0 (rob0gmx.co.uk)
Date: Mon Apr 14 2008 - 19:01:03 CDT

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Mon April 14 2008 17:58:15 Victor Duchovni wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 05:42:36PM -0500, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> > I was discussing my header check rule today which rejects "mail from
> > the past" (obviously invalid Date: header.) It was lame and boring, so
> > I was challenged to make a poem of it. Here is the result:
> >
> > /^Date: .* (19[0-9][0-9]|200[0-7])/ 501 5.5.2
>
> Neither 501, nor 5.5.2 are the correct response codes for header checks.
> Use "554 5.7.1" or "554 5.6.0".
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2821
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3463

Thanks. Actually I had looked at those (821 not 2821, but they're
similar), and I thought a bad date might be seen as a syntax error. I
suppose however that "syntax error" refers to [E]SMTP commands, not to
message formatting?

What about 5.4.7?

X.4.7 Delivery time expired

        The message was considered too old by the rejecting system,
        either because it remained on that host too long or because the
        time-to-live value specified by the sender of the message was
        exceeded. If possible, the code for the actual problem found
        when delivery was attempted should be returned rather than this
        code.

"Delivery time expired" sounds close, but not the description. I'm
going with "554 5.6.0", seems best.
--
    Offlist mail to this address is discarded unless
    "/dev/rob0" or "not-spam" is in Subject: header

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]