Re: [ietf-smtp] SMTP Reply code 500

Geethapriya Liyanage <g.liyanage@gmail.com> Thu, 05 March 2020 02:43 UTC

Return-Path: <g.liyanage@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 811713A0934 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Mar 2020 18:43:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ltXgw0JzREfY for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Mar 2020 18:43:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg1-x52d.google.com (mail-pg1-x52d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 458573A0932 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Mar 2020 18:43:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg1-x52d.google.com with SMTP id u12so1978987pgb.10 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Wed, 04 Mar 2020 18:43:30 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=message-id:subject:from:to:date:in-reply-to:references:mime-version; bh=Ko7/ePpJRTO6AxmFIrBLmSZe5FE3iN7cnIPx0Y8iomg=; b=CJT8esfZ0yq93yeBM05oT1kWxQ9CGmeUvPb4CJzAcr/F/CmDHUkYV4xBLY9MyqoTXW bQv0SEtMngeO6bCH8NWSGbWS3i1zlCSE/QDjGaGnGzEBQxTX82yZ47XxMbmCV9jfNZkY R7EJvDfw4+o7ZtyBzsiLMhY2cKmJ5aakcR2P5YTaqD5M/BwHVkiWuFwwlQyWkK4cIt8E l61dLceduqLLYLfxCF4gqboy+Iwk+vB1KeDAjCpQHHa9np2NRzP3nb4rY3Knwy4wvdn8 eqymS5ed7ciw2XCZyA4TpyyGS++sKUtD6XwwLiwJanKGtdABUsLPSmB6w9qPjsJpjBMa 8JHg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:subject:from:to:date:in-reply-to :references:mime-version; bh=Ko7/ePpJRTO6AxmFIrBLmSZe5FE3iN7cnIPx0Y8iomg=; b=ELwUEBIw3IBt3q07qIdW/23mbp6iJ/RhJ8O4YrGkIlRi671rnWGRzrcanPMECJf5W9 Eky6Z0gCHOBRXUvW8NPmzHAEYfUF7htStnbU6wLVMKza4EZYuVGzpgcap4xTgFsKxEbU KwWgoTJCVRDuytwaQQeUQwHpWulk2gwbk0irU8B/7GG6hOcna32+DYex6LqGxLVHFUow 99JcFQ873VJCAdCEWOGjq4Q9eDYYK8CpWcGMlOnfIjNe9EZWP4gdbZAmOB4+zsndgljZ mCxAdw8XyJRC0ldJXzqKIt7TcegOaiLZfCz/cX2b8QxGGlSawWymu7+p+zGvcrbdOPw2 xnDg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ1IcdMXDIquzxYyEDGs7Pfa0PJpGVbTxyUzBK7yux56pN3/R1W1 Km8HY/qp1pwEMtv142/TIoyGgl1w
X-Google-Smtp-Source: =?utf-8?q?ADFU+vtHOKxvbI/Tx8zWESgMBKXzAN9qz0Peixj36y04?= =?utf-8?q?YTCP+d24TticluzPbL7bhRSsnHmyXbKf7w=3D=3D?=
X-Received: by 2002:a63:5826:: with SMTP id m38mr5465939pgb.191.1583376209700; Wed, 04 Mar 2020 18:43:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.3] ([112.134.5.148]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id s123sm26466709pfs.21.2020.03.04.18.43.28 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 04 Mar 2020 18:43:29 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <1583376210.1990.11.camel@gmail.com>
From: Geethapriya Liyanage <g.liyanage@gmail.com>
To: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>, ietf-smtp@ietf.org
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2020 08:13:30 +0530
In-Reply-To: <5e7ff142-82e4-cf2e-2f22-7d8683c176e6@tana.it>
References: <1583290845.3368.15.camel@gmail.com> <5e7ff142-82e4-cf2e-2f22-7d8683c176e6@tana.it>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=-38yiMaHKKPwXKcIgqOZo"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.18.5.2-0ubuntu3.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/zgQxH5HifZQ19Uho77GiAkO8jL0>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] SMTP Reply code 500
X-BeenThere: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of issues related to Simple Mail Transfer Protocol \(SMTP\) \[RFC 821, RFC 2821, RFC 5321\]" <ietf-smtp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf-smtp>, <mailto:ietf-smtp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf-smtp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-smtp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-smtp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp>, <mailto:ietf-smtp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2020 02:43:32 -0000

On Wed, 2020-03-04 at 10:10 +0100, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> Hi
> 
> On Wed 04/Mar/2020 04:00:45 +0100 Geethapriya Liyanage wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > In SMTP communication, normally SMTP client sends commands and SMTP
> > server
> > replies to that with reply codes.  As in RFC 5321 , section 4.2.4,
> > if the
> > command is not recognized, code 500 should be returned. My doubt
> > is, if the
> > SMTP server sends unrecognized command or code to SMTP client ,
> > will the client
> > also replies the same 500 code.  if not, how the SMTP client should
> > handle it.
> 
> SMTP clients can work well by just recognizing the first digit of the
> reply
> code.  "5", in that case, more or less means that the last command
> failed,
> client should stop the transaction if it's in the middle of one, and
> not retry
> sending without prior human intervention.
> 
> A client that cannot recognize the first digit of a reply code is not
> an SMTP
> client.
> 
> To precisely recognize the meaning of a reply can be useful to fine
> tune an
> SMTP client's behavior.  Interpretation of reply codes can be done by
> humans
> who read the log files or the bounce messages, or by machines.  The
> so called
> extended (or enhanced) status codes, which some servers display
> between the
> reply code and the human readable text string, can help machine
> interpretation.
> 
> Usually, however, the fine-tuning that can result from a correct
> interpretation
> does not affect the immediate future of the current client/server
> session.  The
> first digit is enough to make immediate decisions.
> 
> 
> Best,
> Ale
Hi Ale,
Thank you very much for your reply.
Regards,
Geethapriya