Victor Duchovni escribió:
> On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 05:14:26AM +0100, klondike wrote:
>
>
>> When I first wrote began this thread I did it thinking that knowing this
>> issue, could be helpful.
>>
>
> If your first post contains the word "bug" in the subject line, expect
> to meet resistanc
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 05:14:26AM +0100, klondike wrote:
> When I first wrote began this thread I did it thinking that knowing this
> issue, could be helpful.
If your first post contains the word "bug" in the subject line, expect
to meet resistance. A bit of humility: ask a question, rather than
klondike:
> When I first wrote began this thread I did it thinking that knowing this
> issue, could be helpful.
>
> I didn't expect it to end as a flame war neither did I knew how complex
> could be to solve the issue. But it was my first thread on this list,
> and probably last. Anyway, its not d
When I first wrote began this thread I did it thinking that knowing this
issue, could be helpful.
I didn't expect it to end as a flame war neither did I knew how complex
could be to solve the issue. But it was my first thread on this list,
and probably last. Anyway, its not due to the fact this is
Ville Walveranta:
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 9:12 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > Moreover, Postfix was written before RFC2821. Declaring error
> > replies buggy after the rules change is not useful.
> >
>
> But if the rules do change, would you not alter Postfix accordingly? (I
> don't mean this
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 9:12 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Moreover, Postfix was written before RFC2821. Declaring error
> replies buggy after the rules change is not useful.
>
But if the rules do change, would you not alter Postfix accordingly? (I
don't mean this instance specifically as this appe
Victor Duchovni:
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 12:59:41AM +0100, klondike wrote:
>
> > According to section 4.2.4 on the RFC 282, the SMTP server should return
> > 502 only when a command is recognised but not implemented, and 500 if it
> > isn't recognised.
>
> This is not a bug, but it is admittedl
On 12/11/08 11:03 PM, Victor Duchovni at victor.ducho...@morganstanley.com
wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 10:53:18PM -0600, Larry Stone wrote:
>
>>> This is not a bug, but it is admittedly an unecessary deviation from
>>> SHOULD normative language in the RFC when the client is in flagrant
>>> v
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org
> [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Larry Stone
> Sent: Friday, 12 December 2008 3:53 PM
> To: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Subject: Re: Postfix does not dot the i's when client sends
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 10:53:18PM -0600, Larry Stone wrote:
> > This is not a bug, but it is admittedly an unecessary deviation from
> > SHOULD normative language in the RFC when the client is in flagrant
> > violation by sending garbage.
>
> At the risk of moving away from Postfix technical iss
On 12/11/08 9:41 PM, Victor Duchovni at victor.ducho...@morganstanley.com
wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 12:59:41AM +0100, klondike wrote:
>
>> According to section 4.2.4 on the RFC 282, the SMTP server should return
>> 502 only when a command is recognised but not implemented, and 500 if it
>>
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 12:59:41AM +0100, klondike wrote:
> According to section 4.2.4 on the RFC 282, the SMTP server should return
> 502 only when a command is recognised but not implemented, and 500 if it
> isn't recognised.
This is not a bug, but it is admittedly an unecessary deviation from
12 matches
Mail list logo
