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: <961115221415_515664.456256_JHO109-62@CompuServe.COM> Date: 15 Nov 96 17:14:16 EST From: Electronic Postmaster <POSTMASTER@CompuServe.COM> Comments: Returned from: <103311.571@CompuServe.COM> Message-Type: Delivery Report To: Randy Bush <rbush@wna.net> 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: owner-nanog@merit.edu 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 (daemon@localhost) 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 daemon@localhost) 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 (root@rip.psg.com [147.28.0.39]) by merit.edu (8.7.6/merit-2.0) with SMTP id QAA12099 for <nanog@merit.edu>; 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: <m0vOW9V-0007zfC@rip.psg.com> Date: Fri, 15 Nov 96 13:50 PST To: Scott Huddle <huddle@mci.net> Cc: nanog@merit.edu From: Randy Bush <rbush@wna.net> Subject: Re: The Cidr Report References: <199611152058.PAA17223@new6.Reston.mci.net> Sender: owner-nanog@merit.edu
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