Steve Lamb dijo [Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 10:29:51AM -0700]: > Gunnar Wolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Steve Lamb dijo [Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 07:21:05PM -0700]: > > > Gunnar Wolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > [1] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc0821.txt > > > > And what does RFC2821 have to say about it? > > > I would not trust every MTA to implement newer versions of the RFC - > > However, it is up to you to decide ;-) > > Well that's the thing, isn't it. At some point we will have to work with > that document and not legacy documents. Besides, you're operating under the > impression that spamming software follow either.
Ok... You got me on this one - I just went and checked the document. It is, however, quite a recent document (April 2001), and there are still too many people using older software. I prefer having the old, trusted phylosophy - Be strict on what you send, relaxed on what you receive. Now, I am not reading the whole document just to check this out. Skimming it, I found many reasons for the 'DATA' command to return a 4xx or 5xx error code, but didn't find a reason to interrupt the client. Greetings, -- Gunnar Wolf - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - (+52-55)5630-9700 ext. 1366 PGP key 1024D/8BB527AF 2001-10-23 Fingerprint: 0C79 D2D1 2C4E 9CE4 5973 F800 D80E F35A 8BB5 27AF
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
