A delivery failure: why?

Hi.

I sent a message to 4 people using the CC feature. I received the
error message pasted below: what does it mean? Did any of the
recipients receive my message or none of them? Is there any
possibility to know the reasons why the delivery failed?

Many thanks

############################################################ #
Hi. This is the qmail-send program at yahoo.com.
I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following
addresses.
This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.

:
213.123.20.92 does not like recipient.
Remote host said: 550 ... No such mailbox
Giving up on 213.123.20.92.

--- Below this line is a copy of the message.

Return-Path:
Received: (qmail 67942 invoked by uid 60001); 15 Aug 2007 10:08:02
-0000
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
s=s1024; d=yahoo.it;

h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:MIME-Version: Content-
Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-ID;

b=gjuMo1rRwcH+3H/ys1sM46XR2FuT83dpjOUBXLRs2nO6VlLdUxBl
+4VBKGezLAHvJ9yb89YOGPxkpZXaHaVlSri0tjGqMjqHdzezyMJKDLjbniRo joG778uy8UnMw2xG15+gWtl6vvHM1F2VcdQU1lMzQevyD7Xsc0E5M40fhp0= ;
X-YMail-OSG:

tKf6fzAVM1mXRw38V517lWXkRgtCcCcEvC9BhZb14UlJHpD7eBhlP5nqZ6dM OoQCEIjnRgevDzodXt04oZA8IXldKZUCdRkFlm_Uy5xV44Td7cOCYO60ZCtr OLL0XO59Zq_m.szObjXZkA--
Received: from [217.42.200.175] by web23308.mail.ird.yahoo.com via
HTTP; Wed, 15 Aug 2007 12:08:02 CEST
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 12:08:02 +0200 (CEST)
From: fangorn
Subject: [***]
To: YYY@YYY.com
Cc: XXX@XXX.com, ZZZ@ZZZ.com, KKK@KKK.co.uk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="0-1199012764-1187172482=:67784"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <483551.67784.qm@web23308.mail.ird.yahoo.com>

Re: A delivery failure: why?

Fangorn writes:

> Remote host said: 550 ... No such mailbox

that particular recipient apparently did not exist.

--
Peter N. M. Hansteen, member of the first RFC 1149 implementation team
http://bsdly.blogspot.com/ http://www.datadok.no/ http://www.nuug.no/
"Remember to set the evil bit on all malicious network traffic"
delilah spamd[29949]: 85.152.224.147: disconnected after 42673 seconds.

Re: A delivery failure: why?

On 15 Aug, 12:47, Peter N. M. Hansteen wrote:

> Remote host said: 550 ... No such mailbox
>
> that particular recipient apparently did not exist.
>

Above that, the message also says:

:
213.123.20.92 does not like recipient.

This is my main concern: theorically (grammatically, more than
technically) the server should consider as recipient not the sender
but the addressee of my message: in this case the server would
consider 'unpleasant' one of its guests. I would not know why... The
vice versa, which would have much more sense to me, would means that I
am unwelcomed, that is XXX@XXX.com would have instructed the server to
reject any message coming from me, and that the server is not
programmed to be explicit in giving explanations (the whole response
might be instead purposely misleading): I just would like to be sure
that this is not the case.

What about the other recipients? The response of the server seems to
concern only XXX@XXX.com: shall I suppose that the others did receive
my email?

Re: A delivery failure: why?

This is a MIME GnuPG-signed message. If you see this text, it means that
your E-mail or Usenet software does not support MIME signed messages.
The Internet standard for MIME PGP messages, RFC 2015, was published in 1996.
To open this message correctly you will need to install E-mail or Usenet
software that supports modern Internet standards.

--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-21262-1187300472-0001
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Fangorn writes:

> On 15 Aug, 12:47, Peter N. M. Hansteen wrote:
>
>> Remote host said: 550 ... No such mailbox
>>
>> that particular recipient apparently did not exist.
>>
>
> Above that, the message also says:
>
> :
> 213.123.20.92 does not like recipient.
>
> This is my main concern: theorically (grammatically, more than
> technically) the server should consider as recipient not the sender
> but the addressee of my message:

And what exactly leads you to believe that it doesn't?

> in this case the server would
> consider 'unpleasant' one of its guests. I would not know why... The
> vice versa, which would have much more sense to me, would means that I
> am unwelcomed, that is XXX@XXX.com would have instructed the server to
> reject any message coming from me,

If, for some reason, I decided that I did not want mail from you, then you
would get an error message that indicates that, for all practical means, the
recipient address does not exist. It does not exist, as far as you are
concerned. But for someone else, it might be a different story.

> and that the server is not
> programmed to be explicit in giving explanations (the whole response
> might be instead purposely misleading): I just would like to be sure
> that this is not the case.

As far as anyone is concerned, the only thing that ultimately matters is
that the recipient's server refused to accept the message. Why exactly it
did not accept it, whether the recipient did not exist, or you're unwelcome,
for whatever reason, is completely and totally irrelevant. The message was
undeliverable. The end.

> What about the other recipients? The response of the server seems to
> concern only XXX@XXX.com: shall I suppose that the others did receive
> my email?

Yes, you can, presuming you do not receive another non-delivery report, for
another recipient of the same message, tomorrow, next week, or next year.



--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-21262-1187300472-0001
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBGxMR4x9p3GYHlUOIRAiPhAJ9OHCQ6eweTGAq/zJ1dH07oF0IZlACf Ru7t
AtR+foOYJwckHrQaOIgZXuw=
=6S+e
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-21262-1187300472-0001--

Re: A delivery failure: why?

On 16 Aug, 22:41, Sam wrote:

> [cut]
>
> If, for some reason, I decided that I did not want mail from you, then you
> would get an error message that indicates that, for all practical means, the
> recipient address does not exist. It does not exist, as far as you are
> concerned. But for someone else, it might be a different story.
>
> [cut]
>
> As far as anyone is concerned, the only thing that ultimately matters is
> that the recipient's server refused to accept the message. Why exactly it
> did not accept it, whether the recipient did not exist, or you're unwelcome,
> for whatever reason, is completely and totally irrelevant. The message was
> undeliverable. The end.
>

Well, this does make much more sense than inventing an error message
for all the possible id to reject.
I would do that, it is better than giving explanations


> > What about the other recipients? The response of the server seems to
> > concern only X...@XXX.com: shall I suppose that the others did receive
> > my email?
>
> Yes, you can, presuming you do not receive another non-delivery report, for
> another recipient of the same message, tomorrow, next week, or next year.
>

A year! What a really slow server would that be!

Thank you