Glenn Anderson wrote:
At 3:36 pm -0400 10/8/2008, Hector Santos wrote:Nonetheless, I've provided a CLEAR more common than not case of mail delivery problem with this interpretation of yours.No you haven't.Glenn at least acknowledge it.No I didn't.
I have only acknowledged that not retrying the recipient that gets delayed will cause mail delivery problems.
I expected your will be attempting to nak this. I don't how more concise you couldn't been when I asked and you responded:
HS: Please explain why did user1 now lose out in getting HS: the mail when it was a more valid 250 case and user2 was not? GA: That would be entirely up to the receiving server. I am GA: certainly not going to assume that there are no cases where GA: this would happen, that could result in lost mail.I will go on the record, not that it means anything, that this 4.2.5 interpretation is incorrect and does cause mail lost, clearing born from the 8 year old gaffe in 2821 which allowed 5yz retries. I have no doubt about it, and none of you wish to acknowledge.
In any case. Consensus by Osmosis was reached. Done Here. -- Sincerely Hector Santos, CTO http://www.santronics.com http://santronics.blogspot.com