North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Compu$erve RFC 1123 5.3.3 violation
I agree. They should say deferred and let sendmail retry until the local configuration says to bounce a warning or return the message. I will note, students.uiuc.edu also does this if a mailbox is full. - Jared Randy Bush graced my mailbox with this long sought knowledge: > The following bounce from Comp$Serve violates RFC 1123 5.3.3. They have > been repeatedly informed of this and refuse to fix their mail system. > Hence mailing lists here prevent subscription by Compu$erve addressees. > I suggest that others, e.g. the nanog list, do the same. > > randy > > > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Date: 15 Nov 96 17:14:16 EST > From: Electronic Postmaster <[email protected]> > Comments: Returned from: <[email protected]> > Message-Type: Delivery Report > To: Randy Bush <[email protected]> > Subject: Undeliverable message > > Your message could not be delivered for the following reason: > > Mailbox 103311.571 is currently full. > Please resend your message at a later time. > > --- Returned message --- > > Sender: [email protected] > Received: from merit.edu (merit.edu [35.1.1.42]) by hil-img-2.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) > id RAA08607; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 17:14:11 -0500 > Received: from localhost ([email protected]) by merit.edu (8.7.6/merit-2.0) with SMTP id QAA12118; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 16:50:34 -0500 (EST) > Received: by merit.edu (bulk_mailer v1.5); Fri, 15 Nov 1996 16:50:32 -0500 > Received: (from [email protected]) by merit.edu (8.7.6/merit-2.0) id QAA12106 for nanog-outgoing; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 16:50:32 -0500 (EST) > Received: from rip.psg.com ([email protected] [147.28.0.39]) by merit.edu (8.7.6/merit-2.0) with SMTP id QAA12099 for <[email protected]>; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 16:50:28 -0500 (EST) > Received: by rip.psg.com > id m0vOW9V-0007zfC; Fri, 15 Nov 96 13:50 PST (Smail3.1.29.1#1) > Message-Id: <[email protected]> > Date: Fri, 15 Nov 96 13:50 PST > To: Scott Huddle <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > From: Randy Bush <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: The Cidr Report > References: <[email protected]> > Sender: [email protected] > > >> Number of ASes announcing only one prefix: 737 (378 cidr, 359 classful > > Wow! Is a correct assumption that some 40% of the ASs could be > > reclaimed? > > I do not see how you get to this conclusion. He did not say number of ASs > which only appear through one other unique AS, i.e. are single homed. Oh, > Joel! > > >> Largest number of cidr routes: 461 announced by AS3561 > >> Largest number of classful routes: 1266 announced by AS174 > > Neat stuff. Could you list the top ten or five of each of these? > > What is a 'top' prefix? Lowest IP? Shortest prefix? Actually, for > embarrassment sake, I would want to see the most likely candidates for > aggregation. But if I wanna see it, I can look in one of my routers. > > >> Top 20 Withdrawn Routes from 08Nov96 to 15Nov96 > >> -304 AS174 Performance Systems International > > Are congrats due to PSI? > > Far out! Maybe so! > > >> -50 AS2914 WNA, premasticated for MCI :-) > > ??? > > Sorry. I have to convert my RADB RPSL one into a placeholder RIPE-181++ for > the MCI-RR, and that's the descr:. For the real aut-num: see the RADB. I > would think Tony would be picking up the latter. Old habits, TB? > > randy > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|