Re: OT: why I don't want CCs
On Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 05:13:37PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Some key words. First 4xx is an error condition. Second, it is
> temporary. Third, the action *MAY* be requested again. Not must.
> There is absolutely no compelling reason for the client to absolutely
> retry without human intervention. 4xx only states that it is possible
> (and indeed encouraged) for the client to try again. However it
> no-where states that human intervention is a nono. There aren't any
> guidelines as to how long to wait for another attempt or under what
> circumstances that attempt can be made.
You seem to miss the point of the 4yz error code. The fact that an
automated retry can (and should) be done. What you propose would remove
this and instead require human interaction for a transient error. This
*is* wrong. Whether you choose to see it that way or not. Imagine if
all the MTAs out there behaved this way.
> Now if you still feel compelled to refute that please back it up with
> citations from the RFCs and a plausible explanation on why a *client*
> cannot treat a 4xx as a 5xx without doing harm. I do not like being
> told there are problems with my take on the matter without any
> supporting arguments or citations.
The fact that the RFCs classify a 4yz and 5yz error differently indicates
that there is a forseeable need for the difference. You propose
eliminating that need. If it was not needed, I highly doubt it would
have survived revision. Your own citations show the difference and the
suggested actions based on them. Yet you suggest going against the
recommendations of the RFC, when there is no need to do so.
--
Jamin W. Collins
Reply to: