Re: [Fetchmail-users] Working around "Bad sender address syntax" error?

[Matthias A. <mat...@gm...>]

Am 10.09.2014 um 17:53 schrieb Daniel Barrett:
> 
> Thanks to Matthias and Rob for your suggestions to use the
> nosoftbounce and antispam features!
> 
> Looks like the antispam feature can set "501" as a spam code (-Z 501),
> but it does not accept the full "501 5.1.7" code reported in my error
> message. Is this correct, and do you think this would be a worthwhile
> enhancement request for fetchmail?

Thank you for the suggestion.  For now fetchmail only looks at the
actual SMTP/LMTP response code, rather than the RFC3463 extended status
code, and I wonder how broad we would need to make the RFC3463 stuff to
make it useful, rather than create user confusion because only some
parts of fetchmail might be looking at it.

If you have a use case where you need the 5.1.7 code or similar ones to
make a distinction beyond just the "501" in your case (or more
generally), then please file the use case along with the feature request
and include a reference to RFC3463.

> FYI, I asked my original question on StackOverflow last week and got
> no responses. Feel free to add your answers and win some reputation
> points! :-)

Certainly not.  While Stackoverflow is one of the forums that is getting
near the brink of being actually useful and halfway concise, I do not
believe in dispersing such knowledge outside the official and publicly
archived support channels, and SO is certainly way too late to the game.
By how many years does fetchmail predate it?