Hello,
I thought that mailman would attempt to parse a bounce caused by a
failed delivery to establish if that failure was temporary or permanent.
It might be that mailman parses the error code correctly if that is
received directly from the outgoing mailserver, but it seems that if
the code is in a bounce (DSN), the parsing might fail.
I use exim 4.60 as outgoing mailserver and when attempting to deliver
to an overquota mailbox it will return a message with the following
body:
This message was created automatically by mail delivery software.
A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:
user@example.domain
SMTP error from remote mail server after RCPT
TO:user@example.domain:
host mail-mx-4.tiscali.it [213.205.33.33]: 552 RCPT
TO:user@example.domain Mailbox disk quota exceeded
------ This is a copy of the message, including all the headers. ------ [...]
The user is then given 1 point as with a permanent failure.
If this is not what's supposed to happen, where do I look in the code
to fix this?
I see 552 only in Mailman/Handlers/SMTPDirect.py but this is not a
direct SMTP error.
Or perhaps i should teach exim to treat 552 as temporary errors
(until the maximum retry has been reached).
Thanks
Giuliano
Giuliano Gavazzi wrote:
I thought that mailman would attempt to parse a bounce caused by a
failed delivery to establish if that failure was temporary or permanent.
I know that the Bounce Processing page says that 'soft' bounces score 0.5 and 'hard' bounces score 1.0, but this is not actually implemented.
However, in any case, RFC 2821 defines any 5yx status as a permanent failure, even 552.
It might be that mailman parses the error code correctly if that is
received directly from the outgoing mailserver, but it seems that if
the code is in a bounce (DSN), the parsing might fail.
Mailman does treat a 552 received during delivery by SMTPDirect as retryable, but this is different. Normally, a 552 - full mailbox will never be seen by SMTPDirect, since delivery to the remote MTA won't be attempted until after the SMTP transaction is complete. The 552 that might be seen by SMTPDirect is based on RFC 821 which says a 552 response can be used for "too many recipients".
I use exim 4.60 as outgoing mailserver and when attempting to deliver
to an overquota mailbox it will return a message with the following
body:This message was created automatically by mail delivery software.
A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed: ^^^^^^^^^
user@example.domain SMTP error from remote mail server after RCPT
TO:user@example.domain: host mail-mx-4.tiscali.it [213.205.33.33]: 552 RCPT
TO:user@example.domain Mailbox disk quota exceeded
Exim is behaving properly in this case. The problem, if any, is with the receiving MTA that is returning a 552 instead of a 452.
The user is then given 1 point as with a permanent failure. If this is not what's supposed to happen, where do I look in the code
to fix this?
I'm currently working on the code in this area, but only to increase the variety of notices that are recognized, and one other change in the area of 'delayed' notices. The current code/design actually provides no way to assign different scores to different bounces. The recognizers (in Mailman/Bouncers) return either a list of bouncing addresses or a 'stop' signal in the case of a 'delayed' or 'warning only' DSN. Mailman treats the 'stop' signal as an empty list, so these notices are treated the same as 'unrecognized'. In Mailman 2.1.8, the 'stop' signal will result in the bounce being ignored.
If you want to discuss implementation of variable scoring, we should probably do that on mailman-developers.
Or perhaps i should teach exim to treat 552 as temporary errors
(until the maximum retry has been reached).
If you want to actually keep retrying these, this would be the way to go.
-- Mark Sapiro msapiro@value.net The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan
Mark Sapiro wrote:
If you want to discuss implementation of variable scoring, we should probably do that on mailman-developers.
Sorry, this IS mailman-developers. My mistake.
-- Mark Sapiro msapiro@value.net The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan
participants (2)
-
Giuliano Gavazzi
-
Mark Sapiro