I don't really intend to continue the discussion as most things have been said. Just wanna point you to the context. The topmost comment was referring to his o

I don't really intend to continue the discussion as most things have been said. Just wanna point you to the context. The topmost comment was referring to his own comment and discussion about the original issue 3 days ago. You can find this here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25438169 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25438169 The topmost commenter also replied to you that there was that previous discussion here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25473468 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25473468 So while you didn't have the context, he and probably many others (like myself) did have that context. Again, this is not to blame you, because as I said it wasn't repeated in this thread and you couldn't have known. > In the context of the RFC, mailing list software should be viewed the same as a 'human being'. Of course it's fine to it to re-send, if the software wishes. [...] > Then, the mailing list software, the end user, can do as they wish. Including trying a resend. I don't see the conflict here,[...] A lot of people were arguing 3 days ago that the end user (e.g. the mailing list software) should never try a resend and removing the email immediately (after the first 550 response) is correct behavior and mandaotry by the RFC. The topmost comment here restated that this is in fact wrong. Based on what I quoted from you here, you're actually agreeing with the topmost comment you were initially disagreeing with. Here is the relevant part from the topmost comment: > When this event happened, I said senders need to avoid taking "invalid address" at face value when they've recently succeeded delivering to the same addresses. But despite the RFC saying senders "should not" repeat requests (rather than "must not"), many people had a lot of resistance to this idea, and instead just blamed Google for messing up implementing the RFC.