Mij:
> On Apr 22, 2010, at 4:21 , Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> >> Hello folks,
> >>
> >> Postfix appears to be breaking RFC 5321 by speculatively injecting
> >> the entire envelope session passing over replies from the server.
> >
> > Oh, and while you're collecting the evidence, you may also want t
On Apr 22, 2010, at 4:21 , Wietse Venema wrote:
>> Hello folks,
>>
>> Postfix appears to be breaking RFC 5321 by speculatively injecting
>> the entire envelope session passing over replies from the server.
>
> Oh, and while you're collecting the evidence, you may also want to
> read up on RFC 29
> The hard thing when comparing mail solutions is I believe comparing systems
> that try to do everything (some include Postfix), versus building from
> constituent parts. Historically the "do everythings" have been onerously
> complicated, and/or insecure. But I really can't comment on things like
On Tuesday 27 April 2010 17:24:35 Victor Duchovni wrote:
>
> $ < /tmp/data pcregrep -c Postfix
> 134368
If we are hijacking the thread for how to convince suits to use Postfix...
Picking an MTA based only on popularity would have got you sendmail until
fairly recently, and I don't think
N. Yaakov Ziskind:
> Victor Duchovni wrote (on Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 01:28:24AM -0400):
> > Also, at this point, with Postfix driving such a large share of the
> > Internet email infrastructure,
>
> Can you, please, elucidate on this? Some numbers, perhaps, or a list of
> Fortune XX companies that
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 11:19:23AM -0400, N. Yaakov Ziskind wrote:
> Victor Duchovni wrote (on Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 01:28:24AM -0400):
> > Also, at this point, with Postfix driving such a large share of the
> > Internet email infrastructure,
>
> Can you, please, elucidate on this? Some numbers,
Victor Duchovni wrote (on Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 01:28:24AM -0400):
> Also, at this point, with Postfix driving such a large share of the
> Internet email infrastructure,
Can you, please, elucidate on this? Some numbers, perhaps, or a list of
Fortune XX companies that use it? It would be useful in
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 03:45:34AM +0200, Mij wrote:
> Postfix appears to be breaking RFC 5321 by speculatively injecting
> the entire envelope session passing over replies from the server.
Folks, today is not April 1st, that was 21 days ago. Please, no more
"Postfix is fundamentally broken, and
Mij:
> Hello folks,
>
> Postfix appears to be breaking RFC 5321 by speculatively injecting
> the entire envelope session passing over replies from the server.
Oh, and while you're collecting the evidence, you may also want to
read up on RFC 2920 (SMTP Pipelining).
Wietse
On 04/21/2010 09:45 PM, Mij wrote:
> Hello folks,
>
> Postfix appears to be breaking RFC 5321 by speculatively injecting
> the entire envelope session passing over replies from the server.
>
> In src/smtp/smtp_proto.c , smtp_loop() handles the delivery loop by
> deliberately "pipelining" comman
Mij:
> Hello folks,
>
> Postfix appears to be breaking RFC 5321 by speculatively injecting
> the entire envelope session passing over replies from the server.
You MUST show a packet trace to support this claim.
Wietse
Hello folks,
Postfix appears to be breaking RFC 5321 by speculatively injecting
the entire envelope session passing over replies from the server.
In src/smtp/smtp_proto.c , smtp_loop() handles the delivery loop by
deliberately "pipelining" commands and replies in separate queues.
Only the SMTP g
12 matches
Mail list logo
