>> On Friday 10 June 2005 1:49 pm, Jason Haar wrote:
>> > Jeremy Bowen wrote:
>> > >Maybe my installation is non-standard but again, in my experience, the
>> > >catch-all address collects this mail and doesn't subsequently bounce it so
>> > >No, it's not broken.
>> >
>> > I do that too - but that's
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote on 10/06/2005 00:25:35:
> We're all happy to discard viruses without bouncing them.
> We're even OK with the idea of discarding SPAM without notifying the"sender".
> It's not hard to conclude that bouncing in these two cases is utterly
wrong,
> despite what the RFCs may
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote on 09/06/2005 22:49:27:
> Jeremy Bowen wrote:
>
> >No I'm not. Read what I wrote. "If an MTA does accept email
for delivery, it
> >should NEVER bounce it"
Qmail, due to its modular architecture does accept
message and decide to bounce later in its chain. You need to und
Jeremy Bowen wrote:
No I'm not. Read what I wrote. "If an MTA does accept email for delivery, it
should NEVER bounce it"
In my experience with qmail (which I'll fully admit is not extensive), I don't
believe it behaves in the manner I'm complaining about. I don't think it
bounces mail for un
---
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: NEC IT Guy Games. How far can you shotput
a projector? How fast can you ride your desk chair down the office luge track?
If you want to score the big prize, get to know the little guy.
Play to win an NE
Message: 6
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2005 11:20:27 +1200
From: Jason Haar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: Trimble Navigation Ltd.
To: qmail-scanner-general@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Qmail-scanner-general]INCONTROLED SPAM
Jeremy Bowen wrote:
If ignorant mail-admins didn't accept the spa
On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 15:59:14 +1200 Jeremy Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have no problem that qmail will *accept* the messages but I'm not happy
> that
> it *bounces* them AFTER they've been accepted. (I'm still not sure that it
> does this by default.)
Usually it does not accept them (w
On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 09:22:04 +1200 Jason Haar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OK - that needs to be fixed. You can see why this is in the contrib/
> directory... No-one is really looking after it.
It still works with kavdaemon 4.x, I'm still using it. The OP is having
problems with newer aveserver
On Fri, 2005-06-10 at 00:42 +1200, Jeremy Bowen wrote:
> You're coming at this too late. The RFCs only require the MTA send a
> bounce if it is unable to deliver mail that it has *accepted*. I'm
> arguing that the MTA should not have accepted it in the first place if
> it can determine beforehan
Adam Goryachev wrote:
well, any MTA which follows the RFC (ie, any proper MTA, which might
exclude some crappy ones - no names) is *required* to send a bounce if
it isn't able to successfully deliver the message.
You're coming at this too late. The RFCs only require the MTA send a
bounce if it
10 matches
Mail list logo
