Great Circle Associates List-Managers
(October 2001)

Indexed By Date: [Previous] [Next] Indexed By Thread: [Previous] [Next]

Subject: Re: Yahoo
From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg @ monkeys . com>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 20:32:40 -0700
To: List-Managers @ GreatCircle . COM
In-reply-to: Your message of Mon, 22 Oct 2001 20:58:43 -0400. <20011022205843 . B17095 @ scadian . net>

In message <20011022205843 .
 B17095 @
 scadian .
blaise @
 scadian .
 net wrote:

>On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 02:43:58PM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>> In message <Pine .
 LNX .
 4 .
 10 .
 10110221604380 .
 2030-100000 @
 ruby .
 ccmr .
 cornell .
>>  Mitch Collinsworth <mitch @
 ccmr .
 cornell .
 edu> wrote:
>> >> (reason: 552 exceeded rcpt to max limit)
>> >>      (expanded from: :include:/usr/local/majordomo/Lists/wbmutbb-digest)
>> >> 
>> >> I've tried making the Digest versions smaller in size but that doesn't se
>> >to have corrected the problem. Anybody have any ideas?
>> >
>> >A "rcpt to max limit" would be the number of recipients you're
>> >sending to at that site.  Sendmail sends one copy of the message to
>> >each destination MTA with all recipients listed in the envelope
>> >headers (rcpt to:).  The receiving sendmail will then deliver a
>> >separate copy to each recipient.  Sounds like yahoo don't understand
>> >the difference between mail lists and spammers.
>> More to the point, it is not entirely clear that the folks at Yahoo
>> have either read or fully understood the following passage from RFC 2821:
>>    If an SMTP server has an implementation limit on the number of RCPT
>>    commands and this limit is exhausted, it MUST use a response code of
>>    452 (but the client SHOULD also be prepared for a 552, as noted
>>    above).  If the server has a configured site-policy limitation on the
>>    number of RCPT commands, it MAY instead use a 5XX response code.
>>    This would be most appropriate if the policy limitation was intended
>>    to apply if the total recipient count for a particular message body
>>    were enforced even if that message body was sent in multiple mail
>>    transactions.
>> (My own opinion is that most probably, they simply screwed up, and they
>> ought to be issuing 452 codes for excess RCPT TOs in a given transaction.)
>My opinion is that they read the RFC precisely and you missed a spot. 
>This does not seem to be an implementation limit but a configured site-
>policy limitation (as far as we can tell).

There's an easy way to find out if that is the case.

First find out how many RCPT TOs (`N') before Yahoo gives the 552 response.

Then take a message (any message) and try to send that exact message to
Yahoo in `N' totally separate SMTP transactions.

If you don't get 552 on the Nth transaction, when sending the messages
using separate transactions, then I'm right.  Otherwise you're right.

That's what the quoted passage of the RFC appears to say.

Indexed By Date Previous: Re: Yahoo
From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" <rogerk @ queernet . org>
Next: Re: Automated bounce recognition
From: Tom Neff <tneff @ panix . com>
Indexed By Thread Previous: Re: Yahoo
From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" <rogerk @ queernet . org>
Next: Re: Yahoo
From: Chuq Von Rospach <chuqui @ plaidworks . com>

Search Internet Search