Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) Enhanced Status Codes Registry
Created
2008-05-29
Last Updated
2024-12-06
Available Formats
[IMG]
XML [IMG]
HTML [IMG]
Plain text
Registries included below
??Class Sub-Codes
??Subject Sub-Codes
??Enumerated Status Codes
Class Sub-Codes
Registration Procedure(s)
Specification Required
Expert(s)
Chris Newman
Reference
[RFC5248]
Available Formats
[IMG]
CSV
Code Summary Description Reference Submitter Change Controller
Success specifies that the DSN is reporting a positive [RFC3463] (Standards
2.XXX.YYY Success delivery action. Detail sub-codes may provide notification of track) G. Vaudreuil IESG
transformations required for delivery.
A persistent transient failure is one in which the message as
Persistent Transient sent is valid, but persistence of some temporary condition [RFC3463] (Standards
4.XXX.YYY Failure has caused abandonment or delay of attempts to send the track) G. Vaudreuil IESG
message. If this code accompanies a delivery failure report,
sending in the future may be successful.
A permanent failure is one which is not likely to be resolved
5.XXX.YYY Permanent Failure by resending the message in the current form. Some change to [RFC3463] (Standards G. Vaudreuil IESG
the message or the destination must be made for successful track)
delivery.
Subject Sub-Codes
Registration Procedure(s)
Specification Required
Expert(s)
Chris Newman
Reference
[RFC5248]
Available Formats
[IMG]
CSV
Code Summary Description Reference Submitter Change Controller
X.0.YYY Other or Undefined There is no additional subject information available. [RFC3463] (Standards G. Vaudreuil IESG
Status track)
The address status reports on the originator or destination
X.1.YYY Addressing Status address. It may include address syntax or validity. These [RFC3463] (Standards G. Vaudreuil IESG
errors can generally be corrected by the sender and track)
retried.
Mailbox status indicates that something having to do with [RFC3463] (Standards
X.2.YYY Mailbox Status the mailbox has caused this DSN. Mailbox issues are assumed track) G. Vaudreuil IESG
to be under the general control of the recipient.
Mail system status indicates that something having to do
X.3.YYY Mail System Status with the destination system has caused this DSN. System [RFC3463] (Standards G. Vaudreuil IESG
issues are assumed to be under the general control of the track)
destination system administrator.
The networking or routing codes report status about the
delivery system itself. These system components include any
X.4.YYY Network and Routing necessary infrastructure such as directory and routing [RFC3463] (Standards G. Vaudreuil IESG
Status services. Network issues are assumed to be under the track)
control of the destination or intermediate system
administrator.
The mail delivery protocol status codes report failures
X.5.YYY Mail Delivery Protocol involving the message delivery protocol. These failures [RFC3463] (Standards G. Vaudreuil IESG
Status include the full range of problems resulting from track)
implementation errors or an unreliable connection.
The message content or media status codes report failures
involving the content of the message. These codes report
Message Content or Media failures due to translation, transcoding, or otherwise [RFC3463] (Standards
X.6.YYY Status unsupported message media. Message content or media issues track) G. Vaudreuil IESG
are under the control of both the sender and the receiver,
both of which must support a common set of supported
content-types.
The security or policy status codes report failures
involving policies such as per-recipient or per-host
filtering and cryptographic operations. Security and policy
X.7.YYY Security or Policy status issues are assumed to be under the control of either [RFC3463] (Standards G. Vaudreuil IESG
Status or both the sender and recipient. Both the sender and track)
recipient must permit the exchange of messages and arrange
the exchange of necessary keys and certificates for
cryptographic operations.
Enumerated Status Codes
Registration Procedure(s)
Specification Required
Expert(s)
Chris Newman
Reference
[RFC5248]
Available Formats
[IMG]
CSV
Associated
Code Sample Text basic status Description Reference Submitter Change Controller
code
Other undefined status is the only
X.0.0 Other undefined Any undefined error code. It should be [RFC3463] (Standards Track) G. Vaudreuil IESG
Status used for all errors for which only
the class of the error is known.
Other address Something about the address
X.1.0 status Not given specified in the message caused this [RFC3463] (Standards Track) G. Vaudreuil IESG
DSN.
The mailbox specified in the address
does not exist. For Internet mail
X.1.1 Bad destination 451, 550 names, this means the address [RFC3463] (Standards Track) G. Vaudreuil IESG
mailbox address portion to the left of the "@" sign
is invalid. This code is only useful
for permanent failures.
The destination system specified in
the address does not exist or is
incapable of accepting mail. For
X.1.2 Bad destination Not given Internet mail names, this means the [RFC3463] (Standards Track) G. Vaudreuil IESG
system address address portion to the right of the
"@" is invalid for mail. This code
is only useful for permanent
failures.
The destination address was
Bad destination syntactically invalid. This can
X.1.3 mailbox address 501 apply to any field in the address. [RFC3463] (Standards Track) G. Vaudreuil IESG
syntax This code is only useful for
permanent failures.
The mailbox address as specified
matches one or more recipients on
Destination mailbox the destination system. This may
X.1.4 address ambiguous Not given result if a heuristic address [RFC3463] (Standards Track) G. Vaudreuil IESG
mapping algorithm is used to map the
specified address to a local mailbox
name.
This mailbox address as specified
X.1.5 Destination address 250 was valid. This status code should [RFC3463] (Standards Track) G. Vaudreuil IESG
valid be used for positive delivery
reports.
The mailbox address provided was at
Destination mailbox one time valid, but mail is no
X.1.6 has moved, No Not given longer being accepted for that [RFC3463] (Standards Track) G. Vaudreuil IESG
forwarding address address. This code is only useful
for permanent failures.
Bad sender's The sender's address was
X.1.7 mailbox address Not given syntactically invalid. This can [RFC3463] (Standards Track) G. Vaudreuil IESG
syntax apply to any field in the address.
The sender's system specified in the
address does not exist or is
X.1.8 Bad sender's system 451, 501 incapable of accepting return mail. [RFC3463] (Standards Track) G. Vaudreuil IESG
address For domain names, this means the
address portion to the right of the
"@" is invalid for mail.
The mailbox address specified was
Message relayed to valid, but the message has been
X.1.9 non-compliant Not given relayed to a system that does not [RFC3886] (Standards Track) E. Allman IESG
mailer speak this protocol; no further
information can be provided.
Recipient address This status code is returned when [RFC7505] (Standards Track); J. Levine,
X.1.10 has null MX 556 the associated address is marked as [RFC7504] (Standards Track) M. Delany, IESG
invalid using a null MX. J. Klensin
Other or undefined The mailbox exists, but something
X.2.0 mailbox status Not given about the destination mailbox has [RFC3463] (Standards Track) G. Vaudreuil IESG
caused the sending of this DSN.
The mailbox exists, but is not
Mailbox disabled, accepting messages. This may be a
X.2.1 not accepting Not given permanent error if the mailbox will [RFC3463] (Standards Track) G. Vaudreuil IESG
messages never be re-enabled or a transient
error if the mailbox is only
temporarily disabled.
The mailbox is full because the user
has exceeded a per-mailbox
administrative quota or physical
X.2.2 Mailbox full 552 capacity. The general semantics [RFC3463] (Standards Track) G. Vaudreuil IESG
implies that the recipient can
delete messages to make more space
available. This code should be used
as a persistent transient failure.
A per-mailbox administrative message
Message length length limit has been exceeded. This
exceeds status code should be used when the
X.2.3 administrative 552 per-mailbox message length limit is [RFC3463] (Standards Track) G. Vaudreuil IESG
limit less than the general system limit.
This code should be used as a
permanent failure.
The mailbox is a mailing list
Mailing list address and the mailing list was
X.2.4 expansion problem 450, 452 unable to be expanded. This code may [RFC3463] (Standards Track) G. Vaudreuil IESG
represent a permanent failure or a
persistent transient failure.
221, 250, The destination system exists and
X.3.0 Other or undefined 421, 451, normally accepts mail, but something [RFC3463] (Standards Track) G. Vaudreuil IESG
mail system status 550, 554 about the system has caused the
generation of this DSN.
Mail system storage has been
exceeded. The general semantics
imply that the individual recipient
X.3.1 Mail system full 452 may not be able to delete material [RFC3463] (Standards Track) G. Vaudreuil IESG
to make room for additional
messages. This is useful only as a
persistent transient error.
The host on which the mailbox is
resident is not accepting messages.
System not Examples of such conditions include [RFC3463] (Standards Track); G.
X.3.2 accepting network 453, 521 an imminent shutdown, excessive [RFC7504] (Standards Track) Vaudreuil, IESG
messages load, or system maintenance. This is J. Klensin
useful for both permanent and
persistent transient errors.
Selected features specified for the
System not capable message are not supported by the
X.3.3 of selected Not given destination system. This can occur [RFC3463] (Standards Track) G. Vaudreuil IESG
features in gateways when features from one
domain cannot be mapped onto the
supported feature in another.
The message is larger than
Message too big for per-message size limit. This limit
X.3.4 system 552, 554 may either be for physical or [RFC3463] (Standards Track) G. Vaudreuil IESG
administrative reasons. This is
useful only as a permanent error.
System incorrectly The system is not configured in a
X.3.5 configured Not given manner that will permit it to accept [RFC3463] (Standards Track) G. Vaudreuil IESG
this message.
The message was accepted for
relay/delivery, but the requested
priority (possibly the implied
X.3.6 Requested priority 250 or 251 default) was not honoured. The human [RFC6710] (Standards Track) A. Melnikov IESG
was changed readable text after the status code
contains the new priority, followed
by SP (space) and explanatory human
readable text.
Something went wrong with the
Other or undefined networking, but it is not clear what
X.4.0 network or routing Not given the problem is, or the problem [RFC3463] (Standards Track) G. Vaudreuil IESG
status cannot be well expressed with any of
the other provided detail codes.
The outbound connection attempt was
not answered, because either the
X.4.1 No answer from host 451 remote system was busy, or was [RFC3463] (Standards Track) G. Vaudreuil IESG
unable to take a call. This is
useful only as a persistent
transient error.
The outbound connection was
established, but was unable to
complete the message transaction,
X.4.2 Bad connection 421 either because of time-out, or [RFC3463] (Standards Track) G. Vaudreuil IESG
inadequate connection quality. This
is useful only as a persistent
transient error.
The network system was unable to
forward the message, because a
directory server was unavailable.
X.4.3 Directory server 451, 550 This is useful only as a persistent [RFC3463] (Standards Track) G. Vaudreuil IESG
failure transient error. The inability to
connect to an Internet DNS server is
one example of the directory server
failure error.
The mail system was unable to
determine the next hop for the
message because the necessary
routing information was unavailable
from the directory server. This is
X.4.4 Unable to route Not given useful for both permanent and [RFC3463] (Standards Track) G. Vaudreuil IESG
persistent transient errors. A DNS
lookup returning only an SOA (Start
of Administration) record for a
domain name is one example of the
unable to route error.
The mail system was unable to
Mail system deliver the message because the mail
X.4.5 congestion 451 system was congested. This is useful [RFC3463] (Standards Track) G. Vaudreuil IESG
only as a persistent transient
error.
A routing loop caused the message to
be forwarded too many times, either
X.4.6 Routing loop Not given because of incorrect routing tables [RFC3463] (Standards Track) G. Vaudreuil IESG
detected or a user- forwarding loop. This is
useful only as a persistent
transient error.
The message was considered too old
by the rejecting system, either
because it remained on that host too
long or because the time-to-live
X.4.7 Delivery time Not given value specified by the sender of the [RFC3463] (Standards Track) G. Vaudreuil IESG
expired message was exceeded. If possible,
the code for the actual problem
found when delivery was attempted
should be returned rather than this
code.
220, 250, Something was wrong with the
251, 252, protocol necessary to deliver the
Other or undefined 253, 451, message to the next hop and the
X.5.0 protocol status 452, 454, problem cannot be well expressed [RFC3463] (Standards Track) G. Vaudreuil IESG
458, 459, with any of the other provided
501, 502, detail codes.
503, 554
430, 500, A mail transaction protocol command
X.5.1 Invalid command 501, 503, was issued which was either out of [RFC3463] (Standards Track) G. Vaudreuil IESG
530, 550, sequence or unsupported. This is
554, 555 useful only as a permanent error.
A mail transaction protocol command
was issued which could not be
X.5.2 Syntax error 500, 501, interpreted, either because the [RFC3463] (Standards Track) G. Vaudreuil IESG
502, 550, 555 syntax was wrong or the command is
unrecognized. This is useful only as
a permanent error.
More recipients were specified for
the message than could have been
delivered by the protocol. This
error should normally result in the
X.5.3 Too many recipients 451 segmentation of the message into [RFC3463] (Standards Track) G. Vaudreuil IESG
two, the remainder of the recipients
to be delivered on a subsequent
delivery attempt. It is included in
this list in the event that such
segmentation is not possible.
A valid mail transaction protocol
command was issued with invalid
Invalid command 451, 501, arguments, either because the
X.5.4 arguments 502, 503, arguments were out of range or [RFC3463] (Standards Track) G. Vaudreuil IESG
504, 550, 555 represented unrecognized features.
This is useful only as a permanent
error.
A protocol version mis-match existed
X.5.5 Wrong protocol Not given which could not be automatically [RFC3463] (Standards Track) G. Vaudreuil IESG
version resolved by the communicating
parties.
This enhanced status code SHOULD be
returned when the server fails the
AUTH command due to the client
Authentication sending a [BASE64] response which is R.
X.5.6 Exchange line is 500 longer than the maximum buffer size [RFC4954] (Standards Track) Siemborski, IESG
too long available for the currently selected A. Melnikov
SASL mechanism. This is useful for
both permanent and persistent
transient errors.
Something about the content of a
Other or undefined message caused it to be considered
X.6.0 media error Not given undeliverable and the problem cannot [RFC3463] (Standards Track) G. Vaudreuil IESG
be well expressed with any of the
other provided detail codes.
The media of the message is not
supported by either the delivery
X.6.1 Media not supported Not given protocol or the next system in the [RFC3463] (Standards Track) G. Vaudreuil IESG
forwarding path. This is useful only
as a permanent error.
The content of the message must be
converted before it can be delivered
Conversion required and such conversion is not
X.6.2 and prohibited Not given permitted. Such prohibitions may be [RFC3463] (Standards Track) G. Vaudreuil IESG
the expression of the sender in the
message itself or the policy of the
sending host.
The message content must be
converted in order to be forwarded
but such conversion is not possible
Conversion required or is not practical by a host in the
X.6.3 but not supported 554 forwarding path. This condition may [RFC3463] (Standards Track) G. Vaudreuil IESG
result when an ESMTP gateway
supports 8bit transport but is not
able to downgrade the message to 7
bit as required for the next hop.
This is a warning sent to the sender
when message delivery was
successfully but when the delivery
X.6.4 Conversion with 250 required a conversion in which some [RFC3463] (Standards Track) G. Vaudreuil IESG
loss performed data was lost. This may also be a
permanent error if the sender has
indicated that conversion with loss
is prohibited for the message.
A conversion was required but was
X.6.5 Conversion Failed Not given unsuccessful. This may be useful as [RFC3463] (Standards Track) G. Vaudreuil IESG
a permanent or persistent temporary
notification.
The message content could not be
X.6.6 Message content not 554 fetched from a remote system. This [RFC4468] (Standards Track) C. Newman IESG
available may be useful as a permanent or
persistent temporary notification.
Non-ASCII addresses This indicates the reception of a
X.6.7 not permitted for 553, 550 MAIL or RCPT command that non-ASCII [RFC6531] (Standards track) Jiankang YAO ima@ietf.org
that addresses are not permitted
sender/recipient
UTF-8 string reply This indicates that a reply
is required, but containing a UTF-8 string is
X.6.8 not permitted by 252, 553, 550 required to show the mailbox name, [RFC6531] (Standards track) Jiankang YAO ima@ietf.org
the SMTP client but that form of response is not
permitted by the SMTP client.
UTF-8 header
message cannot be This indicates that transaction
X.6.9 transferred to one 550 failed after the final "." of the [RFC6531] (Standards track) Jiankang YAO ima@ietf.org
or more recipients, DATA command.
so the message must
be rejected
X.6.10 This is a duplicate of X.6.8 and is [RFC6531] (Standards track)
thus deprecated.
Something related to security caused
220, 235, the message to be returned, and the
450, 454, problem cannot be well expressed
X.7.0 Other or undefined 500, 501, with any of the other provided [RFC3463] (Standards Track) G. Vaudreuil IESG
security status 503, 504, detail codes. This status code may
530, 535, 550 also be used when the condition
cannot be further described because
of security policies in force.
The sender is not authorized to send
to the destination. This can be the
Delivery not 451, 454, result of per-host or per-recipient
X.7.1 authorized, message 502, 503, filtering. This memo does not [RFC3463] (Standards Track) G. Vaudreuil IESG
refused 533, 550, 551 discuss the merits of any such
filtering, but provides a mechanism
to report such. This is useful only
as a permanent error.
Mailing list The sender is not authorized to send
X.7.2 expansion 550 a message to the intended mailing [RFC3463] (Standards Track) G. Vaudreuil IESG
prohibited list. This is useful only as a
permanent error.
A conversion from one secure
Security conversion messaging protocol to another was
X.7.3 required but not Not given required for delivery and such [RFC3463] (Standards Track) G. Vaudreuil IESG
possible conversion was not possible. This is
useful only as a permanent error.
A message contained security
features such as secure
X.7.4 Security features 504 authentication that could not be [RFC3463] (Standards Track) G. Vaudreuil IESG
not supported supported on the delivery protocol.
This is useful only as a permanent
error.
A transport system otherwise
authorized to validate or decrypt a
X.7.5 Cryptographic Not given message in transport was unable to [RFC3463] (Standards Track) G. Vaudreuil IESG
failure do so because necessary information
such as key was not available or
such information was invalid.
A transport system otherwise
Cryptographic authorized to validate or decrypt a
X.7.6 algorithm not Not given message was unable to do so because [RFC3463] (Standards Track) G. Vaudreuil IESG
supported the necessary algorithm was not
supported.
A transport system otherwise
authorized to validate a message was
Message integrity unable to do so because the message
X.7.7 failure Not given was corrupted or altered. This may [RFC3463] (Standards Track) G. Vaudreuil IESG
be useful as a permanent, transient
persistent, or successful delivery
code.
This response to the AUTH command
indicates that the authentication
failed due to invalid or R.
X.7.8 Authentication 535, 554 insufficient authentication [RFC4954] (Standards Track) Siemborski, IESG
credentials invalid credentials. In this case, the A. Melnikov
client SHOULD ask the user to supply
new credentials (such as by
presenting a password dialog box).
This response to the AUTH command
Authentication indicates that the selected R.
X.7.9 mechanism is too 534 authentication mechanism is weaker [RFC4954] (Standards Track) Siemborski, IESG
weak than server policy permits for that A. Melnikov
user. The client SHOULD retry with a
new authentication mechanism.
This indicates that external strong
privacy layer is needed in order to
use the requested authentication
mechanism. This is primarily
X.7.10 Encryption Needed 523 intended for use with clear text [RFC5248] (Best current practice) T. Hansen, IESG
authentication mechanisms. A client J. Klensin
which receives this may activate a
security layer such as TLS prior to
authenticating, or attempt to use a
stronger mechanism.
This response to the AUTH command
indicates that the selected
authentication mechanism may only be
used when the underlying SMTP
Encryption required connection is encrypted. Note that
for requested this response code is documented R.
X.7.11 authentication 524, 538 here for historical purposes only. [RFC4954] (Standards Track) Siemborski, IESG
mechanism Modern implementations SHOULD NOT A. Melnikov
advertise mechanisms that are not
permitted due to lack of encryption,
unless an encryption layer of
sufficient strength is currently
being employed.
This response to the AUTH command
indicates that the user needs to
transition to the selected
A password authentication mechanism. This is R.
X.7.12 transition is 422, 432 typically done by authenticating [RFC4954] (Standards Track) Siemborski, IESG
needed once using the [PLAIN] A. Melnikov
authentication mechanism. The
selected mechanism SHOULD then work
for authentications in subsequent
sessions.
Sometimes a system administrator
will have to disable a user's
account (e.g., due to lack of
payment, abuse, evidence of a
break-in attempt, etc). This error
code occurs after a successful
authentication to a disabled
User Account account. This informs the client T. Hansen,
X.7.13 Disabled 525 that the failure is permanent until [RFC5248] (Best current practice) J. Klensin IESG
the user contacts their system
administrator to get the account
re-enabled. It differs from a
generic authentication failure where
the client's best option is to
present the passphrase entry dialog
in case the user simply mistyped
their passphrase.
The submission server requires a
configured trust relationship with a
Trust relationship third-party server in order to T. Hansen,
X.7.14 required 535, 554 access the message content. This [RFC5248] (Best current practice) J. Klensin IESG
value replaces the prior use of
X.7.8 for this error condition.
thereby updating [RFC4468].
The specified priority level is
below the lowest priority acceptable
450, 550 for the receiving SMTP server. This
Priority Level is (other 4XX or condition might be temporary, for
X.7.15 too low 5XX codes are example the server is operating in a [RFC6710] (Standards Track) A. Melnikov IESG
allowed) mode where only higher priority
messages are accepted for transfer
and delivery, while lower priority
messages are rejected.
The message is too big for the
552 (other specified priority. This condition
Message is too big 4XX or 5XX might be temporary, for example the
X.7.16 for the specified codes are server is operating in a mode where [RFC6710] (Standards Track) A. Melnikov IESG
priority allowed) only higher priority messages below
certain size are accepted for
transfer and delivery.
This status code is returned when a
message is received with a
Require-Recipient-Valid-Since field
X.7.17 Mailbox owner has 5XX or RRVS extension and the receiving [RFC7293] (Standards Track) M. Kucherawy IESG
changed system is able to determine that the
intended recipient mailbox has not
been under continuous ownership
since the specified date-time.
This status code is returned when a
message is received with a
Require-Recipient-Valid-Since field
X.7.18 Domain owner has 5XX or RRVS extension and the receiving [RFC7293] (Standards Track) M. Kucherawy IESG
changed system wishes to disclose that the
owner of the domain name of the
recipient has changed since the
specified date-time.
This status code is returned when a
message is received with a
Require-Recipient-Valid-Since field
or RRVS extension and the receiving
X.7.19 RRVS test cannot be 5XX system cannot complete the requested [RFC7293] (Standards Track) M. Kucherawy IESG
completed evaluation because the required
timestamp was not recorded. The
message originator needs to decide
whether to reissue the message
without RRVS protection.
This status code is returned when a
X.7.20 No passing DKIM 550 message did not contain any passing [RFC7372] (Standards Track); M. Kucherawy IESG
signature found DKIM signatures. (This violates the [RFC6376] (Standards Track)
advice of Section 6.1 of [RFC6376].)
This status code is returned when a
No acceptable DKIM message contains one or more passing [RFC7372] (Standards Track);
X.7.21 signature found 550 DKIM signatures, but none are [RFC6376] (Standards Track) M. Kucherawy IESG
acceptable. (This violates the
advice of Section 6.1 of [RFC6376].)
This status code is returned when a
message contains one or more passing
DKIM signatures, but none are
No valid acceptable because none have an [RFC7372] (Standards Track);
X.7.22 author-matched DKIM 550 identifier(s) that matches the [RFC6376] (Standards Track) M. Kucherawy IESG
signature found author address(es) found in the From
header field. This is a special case
of X.7.21. (This violates the advice
of Section 6.1 of [RFC6376].)
This status code is returned when a
message completed an SPF check that
X.7.23 SPF validation 550 produced a "fail" result, contrary [RFC7372] (Standards Track); M. Kucherawy IESG
failed to local policy requirements. Used [RFC7208] (Standards Track)
in place of 5.7.1 as described in
Section 8.4 of [RFC7208].
This status code is returned when
evaluation of SPF relative to an
X.7.24 SPF validation 451/550 arriving message resulted in an [RFC7372] (Standards Track); M. Kucherawy IESG
error error. Used in place of 4.4.3 or [RFC7208] (Standards Track)
5.5.2 as described in Sections 8.6
and 8.7 of [RFC7208].
This status code is returned when an
Reverse DNS SMTP client's IP address failed a [RFC7372], Section 3.3 (Standards
X.7.25 validation failed 550 reverse DNS validation check, Track) M. Kucherawy IESG
contrary to local policy
requirements.
This status code is returned when a
Multiple message failed more than one message
X.7.26 authentication 550 authentication check, contrary to [RFC7372] (Standards Track) M. Kucherawy IESG
checks failed local policy requirements. The
particular mechanisms that failed
are not specified.
This status code is returned when
the associated sender address has a
X.7.27 Sender address has 550 null MX, and the SMTP receiver is [RFC7505] (Standards Track) J. Levine, IESG
null MX configured to reject mail from such M. Delany
sender (e.g., because it could not
return a DSN).
The message appears to be part of a
X.7.28 Mail flood detected . mail flood of similar abusive [draft-levine-mailbomb-header-00] J. Levine standards@taugh.com
messages.
X.7.29 ARC validation 550 This status code may be returned [RFC8617] K. Andersen IESG
failure when a message fails ARC validation.
This indicates that the message was
not able to be forwarded because it
X.7.30 REQUIRETLS support 550 was received with a REQUIRETLS [RFC8689] J. Fenton IESG
required requirement and none of the SMTP
servers to which the message should
be forwarded provide this support.
Licensing Terms
Presently we were in a very dark road, and at a point where it dropped suddenly between steep sides we halted in black shadow. A gleam of pale sand, a whisper of deep flowing waters, and a farther glimmer of more sands beyond them challenged our advance. We had come to a "grapevine ferry." The scow was on the other side, the water too shoal for the horses to swim, and the bottom, most likely, quicksand. Out of the blackness of the opposite shore came a soft, high-pitched, quavering, long-drawn, smothered moan of woe, the call of that snivelling little sinner the screech-owl. Ferry murmured to me to answer it and I sent the same faint horror-stricken tremolo back. Again it came to us, from not farther than one might toss his cap, and I followed Ferry down to the water's edge. The grapevine guy swayed at our side, we heard the scow slide from the sands, and in a few moments, moved by two videttes, it touched our shore. Soon we were across, the two videttes riding with us, and beyond a sharp rise, in an old opening made by the swoop of a hurricane, we entered the silent unlighted bivouac of Ferry's scouts. Ferry got down and sat on the earth talking with Quinn, while the sergeants quietly roused the sleepers to horse. Plotinus is driven by this perplexity to reconsider the whole theory of Matter.477 He takes Aristotle¡¯s doctrine as the groundwork of his investigation. According to this, all existence is divided into Matter and Form. What we know of things¡ªin other words, the sum of their differential characteristics¡ªis their Form. Take away this, and the unknowable residuum is their Matter. Again, Matter is the vague indeterminate something out of which particular Forms are developed. The two are related as Possibility to Actuality, as the more generic to the more specific substance through every grade of classification and composition. Thus there are two Matters, the one sensible and the other intelligible. The former constitutes the common substratum of bodies, the other the common element of ideas.478 The general distinction between Matter and Form was originally suggested to Aristotle by Plato¡¯s remarks on the same subject; but he differs325 from his master in two important particulars. Plato, in his Timaeus, seems to identify Matter with space.479 So far, it is a much more positive conception than the ?λη of the Metaphysics. On the other hand, he constantly opposes it to reality as something non-existent; and he at least implies that it is opposed to absolute good as a principle of absolute evil.480 Thus while the Aristotelian world is formed by the development of Power into Actuality, the Platonic world is composed by the union of Being and not-Being, of the Same and the Different, of the One and the Many, of the Limit and the Unlimited, of Good and Evil, in varying proportions with each other. The Lawton woman had heard of an officer's family at Grant, which was in need of a cook, and had gone there. [See larger version] On the 8th of July an extraordinary Privy Council was summoned. All the members, of whatever party, were desired to attend, and many were the speculations as to the object of their meeting. The general notion was that it involved the continuing or the ending of the war. It turned out to be for the announcement of the king's intended marriage. The lady selected was Charlotte, the second sister of the Duke of Mecklenburg-Strelitz. Apart from the narrowness of her education, the young princess had a considerable amount of amiability, good sense, and domestic taste. These she shared with her intended husband, and whilst they made the royal couple always retiring, at the same time they caused them to give, during their lives, a moral air to their court. On the 8th of September Charlotte arrived at St. James's, and that afternoon the marriage took place, the ceremony being performed by the Archbishop of Canterbury. On the 22nd the coronation took place with the greatest splendour. Mother and girls were inconsolable, for each had something that they were sure "Si would like," and would "do him good," but they knew Josiah Klegg, Sr., well enough to understand what was the condition when he had once made up his mind. CHAPTER V. THE YOUNG RECRUITS Si proceeded to deftly construct a litter out of the two guns, with some sticks that he cut with a knife, and bound with pawpaw strips. His voice had sunk very low, almost to sweetness. A soft flurry of pink went over her face, and her eyelids drooped. Then suddenly she braced herself, pulled herself taut, grew combative again, though her voice shook. HoME²Ô¾®Ïè̫ʲôÐÇ×ù
ENTER NUMBET 0016hdelec.org.cn
www.gqlbj.com.cn
lianlao.org.cn
www.fuyime.net.cn
www.jnyimu.org.cn
www.tashout.org.cn
qbjjyyun.net.cn
moyushot.com.cn
www.sikaqi.com.cn
wowo1688.com.cn