On Mon, 3 Aug 2009 08:05:26 -0400 (EDT), wie...@porcupine.org (Wietse Venema) wrote: > John Peach: >> On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 13:18:52 +0200 >> Robin Smidsr__d <ro...@smidsrod.no> wrote: >> [snip] >> > Willy De la Court wrote: >> >
This was the question asked by robin. Something went wrong with the quoting. >> > >> > Does this mean that all of the reject rules are in fact not >> > RFC-conformant? >> > >> > The reason I mention reject_invalid_helo_hostname is that I'm unsure >> > if the IPv(4|6) address syntax is part of this rule (postfix version >> > 2.5.5, distributed with ubuntu 9.04). >> > >> > What about the two other reject rules? As far as I can tell, they are >> > both non-conformant. >> >> Your server, your rules. And if that rule blocks about 40% of the spam........ > > Indeed. RFCs are relevant only when parties want to interoperate. > Generally, there is no such desire on the receiving end of SPAM. > > Wietse I totally agree. -- Simple things make people happy. Willy De la Court PGP Public Key at http://www.linux-lovers.be/download/public_key.asc PGP Key fingerprint = 784E E18F 7F85 9C7C AC1A D5FB FE08 686C 37C7 A689
