On Mon, 22 Feb 2016, Ian Eiloart wrote:
> > On 16 Feb 2016, at 11:24, Rich Kulawiec <r...@gsp.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 10:52:43AM -0800, Brandon Long wrote:
> >> We rolled out a RFC 5321 compliant parser to smtp in Aug/Sept of last year,
> >> to much gnashing of teeth for a small set of users with some crappy
> >> software. We rolled it back for MSA (just silently replace with the
> >> auth-user), because apparently virtually all embedded devices (security
> >> cameras, mostly) send garbage at MAIL FROM.
> >
> > As you know, I'm not a big fan of Gmail, but I fully support your
> > rollout of this and encourage you to enforce it for MSA as well.
>
> I’d love to see that, but it’s so, so hard. Apple can’t get this right,
> for example. Apparently, they can’t spell "undisclosed recipients:;"
> when sending email to groups. They’ve always insisted on saying
> something like this: "undisclosed recipients:<>;", which isn’t valid.
Quite. Here's what my config says now, about my use of Exim's
"header_syntax" verification check:
## header syntax error
## We begrudgingly make some exceptions to this for some common cases:
## + some Microsoft client generates: <Undisclosed-Recipient:;>
## + Apple Mail (2.1084 at least) generates: Undisclosed-recipients: <>;
## We are also very forgiving for some hosts.
##
## Mar2013: very regrettably, I have decided to remove this check. It
## has served us well for many years, but these days the false positives
## are just too much work for me to keep dealing with. It will be
## interesting to see how much spam increases as a result of this; my
## feeling is it will turn out not to be too significant (spammers are
## more wise to the requirement to properly format mail, and less spam
## email now comes from 'spam engines', and more from compromised
## accounts/systems.
## It still feels wrong to be wilfully accepting so-called 'messages'
## that are not formatted according to the standards that define for the
## format of Internet messages, and hence are not, by definition,
## Internet messages, but in this regard most of the end users do not
## agree that this should be the case, so I have now capitualated.
## The tone of this note should be enough to make it clear about my
## unhappiness with this decision, but resources are what they are, and
## I don't have enough of them (or indeed the will) to keep arguing the
## point.
#deny
# !condition = ${if eq{$h_to:}{<Undisclosed-Recipient:;>}}
# !condition = ${if eq{$h_to:}{Undisclosed-recipients: <>;}}
# hosts = !lsearch;HOSTSSYNTAXCHECKEXCEPTIONS
# !verify = header_syntax
# message = Syntax error in the headers of your message.\n\
# $acl_verify_message\n\
# REFUSENOTICE
# log_message = MSGTAG_HEADERSYNTAX: \
# $acl_verify_message
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Jethro R Binks, Network Manager,
Information Services Directorate, University Of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK
The University of Strathclyde is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, number SC015263._______________________________________________
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
