SMTP code is not correct

I have 2 mail server : A e B
Clients reference to server A which relays msg to server B (B contains
the mailboxes)
I create on both servers a rule to reject messages (permanent error)
which are contained in specific file.

R<$={ListBounce}@mydomain.com> $#error $@ 5.2.2 $:
"550 Mailbox full for this username"

When I send msg from my client, this happens:

ServerB log:
serverB sendmail[25107]: m317biXM025107: ruleset=check_rcpt,
arg1=, relay=serverA, reject=550 5.2.2
... Mailbox full for this username
serverB sendmail[25107]: m317biXM025107: from=,
size=1192, class=0, nrcpts=0, proto=ESMTP, daemon=MTA, relay=serverA

<< This is correct ! >>

ServerA log:
from=, size=1192, class=0, nrcpts=1,
msgid=<016f01c893cb$445b2fd0$1f01a8c0@Ric>, proto=SMTP, daemon=MTA,
relay=sender [A.B.C.D]
to=, delay=00:00:02, xdelay=00:00:00,
mailer=smtp, pri=31192, relay=serverB, dsn=5.2.2, stat=User unknown

Why "User unknown" message ? DSN correctly shows 5.2.2 but, what's the
reason ?

Re: SMTP code is not correct

RICCARDO schrieb:
> ServerB log:
> serverB sendmail[25107]: m317biXM025107: ruleset=check_rcpt,
> arg1=, relay=serverA, reject=550 5.2.2
> ... Mailbox full for this username
> serverB sendmail[25107]: m317biXM025107: from=,
> size=1192, class=0, nrcpts=0, proto=ESMTP, daemon=MTA, relay=serverA
>
> << This is correct ! >>
>
> ServerA log:
> from=, size=1192, class=0, nrcpts=1,
> msgid=<016f01c893cb$445b2fd0$1f01a8c0@Ric>, proto=SMTP, daemon=MTA,
> relay=sender [A.B.C.D]
> to=, delay=00:00:02, xdelay=00:00:00,
> mailer=smtp, pri=31192, relay=serverB, dsn=5.2.2, stat=User unknown
>
> Why "User unknown" message ? DSN correctly shows 5.2.2 but, what's the
> reason ?

Sendmail internally translates the "mailbox unavailable" status code
into the message "User unknown". A longstanding gripe of mine. I even
tried to produce a patch for correcting this once, but had to admit
defeat because the code that does this is too convoluted for me.

HTH
T.

--
Please excuse my bad English/German/French/Greek/Cantonese/Klingon/...

Re: SMTP code is not correct

On Apr 1, 3:25 pm, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
> RICCARDO schrieb:
>
>
>
> > ServerB log:
> > serverB sendmail[25107]: m317biXM025107: ruleset=check_rcpt,
> > arg1=, relay=serverA, reject=550 5.2.2
> > ... Mailbox full for this username
> > serverB sendmail[25107]: m317biXM025107: from=,
> > size=1192, class=0, nrcpts=0, proto=ESMTP, daemon=MTA, relay=serverA
>
> > << This is correct ! >>
>
> > ServerA log:
> > from=, size=1192, class=0, nrcpts=1,
> > msgid=<016f01c893cb$445b2fd0$1f01a8c0@Ric>, proto=SMTP, daemon=MTA,
> > relay=sender [A.B.C.D]
> > to=, delay=00:00:02, xdelay=00:00:00,
> > mailer=smtp, pri=31192, relay=serverB, dsn=5.2.2, stat=User unknown
>
> > Why "User unknown" message ? DSN correctly shows 5.2.2 but, what's the
> > reason ?
>
> Sendmail internally translates the "mailbox unavailable" status code
> into the message "User unknown". A longstanding gripe of mine. I even
> tried to produce a patch for correcting this once, but had to admit
> defeat because the code that does this is too convoluted for me.
>
> HTH
> T.
>
> --
> Please excuse my bad English/German/French/Greek/Cantonese/Klingon/...

If I understood this behaviour:

Sendmail of serverB returns "550" smtp error code to sendmail of
serverA, which interprets this signal as USER UNKNOWN.
SendmailA has internal table where it's written code 550 - user
unknown ?!
Is't ok ?

Re: SMTP code is not correct

On 1 Apr, 15:25, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
> RICCARDO schrieb:
>
>
>
>
>
> > ServerB log:
> > serverB sendmail[25107]: m317biXM025107: ruleset=check_rcpt,
> > arg1=, relay=serverA, reject=550 5.2.2
> > ... Mailbox full for this username
> > serverB sendmail[25107]: m317biXM025107: from=,
> > size=1192, class=0, nrcpts=0, proto=ESMTP, daemon=MTA, relay=serverA
>
> > << This is correct ! >>
>
> > ServerA log:
> > from=, size=1192, class=0, nrcpts=1,
> > msgid=<016f01c893cb$445b2fd0$1f01a8c0@Ric>, proto=SMTP, daemon=MTA,
> > relay=sender [A.B.C.D]
> > to=, delay=00:00:02, xdelay=00:00:00,
> > mailer=smtp, pri=31192, relay=serverB, dsn=5.2.2, stat=User unknown
>
> > Why "User unknown" message ? DSN correctly shows 5.2.2 but, what's the
> > reason ?
>
> Sendmail internally translates the "mailbox unavailable" status code
> into the message "User unknown". A longstanding gripe of mine. I even
> tried to produce a patch for correcting this once, but had to admit
> defeat because the code that does this is too convoluted for me.
>
> HTH
> T.
>
> --
> Please excuse my bad English/German/French/Greek/Cantonese/Klingon/...- Nascondi testo tra virgolette -
>
> - Mostra testo tra virgolette -

Do you know if it exist way to custom error describe for specific
returned smtp code error. For example if I have 2 MTA sendmail where
one on these is used as relay server; first sendmail relay msg to
second one. If 2nd sendmail returns 550 smtp error code displaying
mailbox full (as described into m check rules), 1st sendmail shows
"user unknown' ! i want 2nd sendmail shows the right error condition.

Re: SMTP code is not correct

RICCARDO schrieb:
> On Apr 1, 3:25 pm, Tilman Schmidt wrote:

>> Sendmail internally translates the "mailbox unavailable" status code
>> into the message "User unknown". A longstanding gripe of mine. I even
>> tried to produce a patch for correcting this once, but had to admit
>> defeat because the code that does this is too convoluted for me.
>
> If I understood this behaviour:
>
> Sendmail of serverB returns "550" smtp error code to sendmail of
> serverA, which interprets this signal as USER UNKNOWN.
> SendmailA has internal table where it's written code 550 - user
> unknown ?!
> Is't ok ?

It's more complicated. The SMTP error is first translated to a more
general internal code signifying "mailbox unavailable", which is
later translated again to the more specific message "User unknown"
even though that this is not the only possible reason for a mailbox
being "unavailable". But the original information about the exact
reason for the non-delivery is not accessible anymore at the point
of that second translation.

HTH
T.

--
Please excuse my bad English/German/French/Greek/Cantonese/Klingon/...

Re: SMTP code is not correct

RICCARDO schrieb:
> On 1 Apr, 15:25, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
>>
>> Sendmail internally translates the "mailbox unavailable" status code
>> into the message "User unknown". A longstanding gripe of mine. I even
>> tried to produce a patch for correcting this once, but had to admit
>> defeat because the code that does this is too convoluted for me.
>
> Do you know if it exist way to custom error describe for specific
> returned smtp code error. For example if I have 2 MTA sendmail where
> one on these is used as relay server; first sendmail relay msg to
> second one. If 2nd sendmail returns 550 smtp error code displaying
> mailbox full (as described into m check rules), 1st sendmail shows
> "user unknown' ! i want 2nd sendmail shows the right error condition.

RFC 821 defines:

552 Requested mail action aborted: exceeded storage allocation

But it seems that's not widely used nor supported.

HTH
T.
--
Please excuse my bad English/German/French/Greek/Cantonese/Klingon/...

Re: SMTP code is not correct

On 3 Apr, 11:12, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
> RICCARDO schrieb:
>
> > On 1 Apr, 15:25, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
>
> >> Sendmail internally translates the "mailbox unavailable" status code
> >> into the message "User unknown". A longstanding gripe of mine. I even
> >> tried to produce a patch for correcting this once, but had to admit
> >> defeat because the code that does this is too convoluted for me.
>
> > Do you know if it exist way to custom error describe for specific
> > returned smtp code error. For example if I have 2 MTA sendmail where
> > one on these is used as relay server; first sendmail relay msg to
> > second one. If 2nd sendmail returns 550 smtp error code displaying
> > mailbox full (as described into m check rules), 1st sendmail shows
> > "user unknown' ! i want 2nd sendmail shows the right error condition.
>
> RFC 821 defines:
>
> 552 Requested mail action aborted: exceeded storage allocation
>
> But it seems that's not widely used nor supported.
>
> HTH
> T.
> --
> Please excuse my bad English/German/French/Greek/Cantonese/Klingon/...

Infact I verified. If I use 552 result is STAT=Service unavailable