Robin Smidsrød wrote:
Mikael Bak wrote:
Robin Smidsrød wrote:
I've had at least one client leave because he absolutely needs to have
every email, because every single email he receives could be really
important. So dealing with spam is something he just has to do. On the
other hand I have users
Mikael Bak wrote:
> Robin Smidsrød wrote:
>> I've had at least one client leave because he absolutely needs to have
>> every email, because every single email he receives could be really
>> important. So dealing with spam is something he just has to do. On the
>> other hand I have users that don't
Robin Smidsrød wrote:
>
> I've had at least one client leave because he absolutely needs to have
> every email, because every single email he receives could be really
> important. So dealing with spam is something he just has to do. On the
> other hand I have users that don't really care one way o
/dev/rob0 wrote:
> On Monday 03 August 2009 07:58:48 Robin Smidsrød wrote:
>> I'm just trying to figure out what to write in a policy document about
>> this behaviour. A behaviour which is backed by a RFC has a lot of more
>> weight (conserning interoperability) than our own policies about what is
On Monday 03 August 2009 07:58:48 Robin Smidsrød wrote:
> Wietse Venema wrote:
> > John Peach:
> >> On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 13:18:52 +0200
> >> Robin Smidsr__d wrote:
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >>> Willy De la Court wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Does this mean that all of the reject rules are in fact not
> >>> RFC
Wietse Venema wrote:
> John Peach:
>> On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 13:18:52 +0200
>> Robin Smidsr__d wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> Willy De la Court wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> 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'
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 wrote:
>> [snip]
>> > Willy De la Court wrote:
>> >
This was the question asked by robin. Something went wrong with the
quoting.
>> >
>> >
John Peach:
> On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 13:18:52 +0200
> Robin Smidsr__d wrote:
> [snip]
> > Willy De la Court wrote:
> >
> >
> > 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(
On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 13:18:52 +0200
Robin Smidsr__d wrote:
[snip]
> Willy De la Court wrote:
>
>
> 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 thi
Willy De la Court wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 11:14:10 +0200, Robin Smidsrød
> wrote:
[snip]
>
> rfc2821 contains the following
>
> - the clarifications and applicability statements in RFC 1123 [2],
[snip]
> http://www.freesoft.org/CIE/RFC/1123/90.htm
>
> where it states
>
> The sender-SMT
On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 12:18:53 +0200, Willy De la Court
wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 11:14:10 +0200, Robin Smidsrød
> wrote:
>> I read John Peach's response to a mail regarding the Postfix option to
>> reject non-FQDN HELO transactions.
>>
>> http://www.irbs.net/internet/postfix/0302/0183.html
>>
On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 11:14:10 +0200, Robin Smidsrød
wrote:
> I read John Peach's response to a mail regarding the Postfix option to
> reject non-FQDN HELO transactions.
>
> http://www.irbs.net/internet/postfix/0302/0183.html
>
> He states that Joris Benschop is correct in that email.
>
> I was s
I read John Peach's response to a mail regarding the Postfix option to
reject non-FQDN HELO transactions.
http://www.irbs.net/internet/postfix/0302/0183.html
He states that Joris Benschop is correct in that email.
I was scanning through RFC 821 (and also through RFC2821 which has
superseeded it)
13 matches
Mail list logo
