"James Blondin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >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. In that case, qmail is not strictly RFC822 compliant in rejecting messages with bare linefeeds. Apparently Dan felt that the effort necessary to allow messages to contain LF's was more trouble than it was worth--especially considered that 822bis prohibits bare LF's. -Dave
- 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
