Dave Sill wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >The 'problem' as it relates to RFCs, not to Qmail's implementation, > >is probably the original question. > > Probably? If you don't know, why bother guessing? I answered the > question I thought was asked. If the person who asked the question > isn't satisfied with that answer, he can say so. > The answer you gave was useful, Dave, but although I didn't realize it at first, my question is really relating to the RFCs more than to qmail's implementation. It's just that qmail's implementation of it led me to asking the question. I appreciate your information... Jamie Blondin
- Solaris / DoS / Broken bare LF mailers / thousands of q... Andrew
- Re: Solaris / DoS / Broken bare LF mailers / thous... Charles Cazabon
- Re: Solaris / DoS / Broken bare LF mailers / thous... Jamie Heilman
- RE: Solaris / DoS / Broken bare LF mailers / t... James Blondin
- RE: Solaris / DoS / Broken bare LF mailers... Dave Sill
- Re: Solaris / DoS / Broken bare LF mai... Michael T. Babcock
- Re: Solaris / DoS / Broken bare L... Dave Sill
- RE: Solaris / DoS / Broken ba... James Blondin
- RE: Solaris / DoS / Broke... Dave Sill
- RE: Solaris / DoS / Broke... James Blondin
- RE: Solaris / DoS / Broke... Dave Sill
- RE: Solaris / DoS / Broke... James Blondin
- RE: Solaris / DoS / Broken bare LF mailers / thous... Andrew Richards
- RE: Solaris / DoS / Broken bare LF mailers / t... Petr Novotny
