-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Saturday, 19. January 2002 13:37, Pete Ryland wrote: > On Sat, Jan 19, 2002 at 12:02:59PM +0000, Thomas Thurman wrote: > > $ telnet hermes.cam.ac.uk smtp > > Trying 131.111.8.67... > > Connected to yellow.csi.cam.ac.uk. > > Escape character is '^]'. > > 220 yellow.csi.cam.ac.uk ESMTP Exim 3.22 #1 Sat, 19 Jan 2002 11:58:44 > > +0000 ^^^^^^^^^ telnet yellow.csi.cam.ac.uk 25 Trying 131.111.8.67... Connected to yellow.csi.cam.ac.uk. Escape character is '^]'. 220 yellow.csi.cam.ac.uk ESMTP Exim 3.22 #1 Sat, 19 Jan 2002 19:01:26 +0000 * It says that it's Exim
MAIL FROM: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 250 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is syntactically correct * Of all the mailservers I know, exim is the only one which says "... is syntactically correct", so I think it's true RCPT TO: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 550 mail from 149.225.1.91 rejected: administrative prohibition (host is blacklisted) ;)) LOL, Exim handles blacklists (but many other MTA's too ), ROTFL > I wouldn't always believe the version reported by a large mail server. > It's quite common practice (I'm sure a lot on this list may do so) to > display a version string that is not at all accurate in an attempt to put > off crackers or create a honeypot. You might ask, "Why not just have no > version string at all?" Well, the SMTP RFC requires a string to be there - > simple as that. ACK, but the "is syntactically correct" is an Exim proof I think. Weissi -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8ScP+3lkVkvL9FpcRAkfYAJ9SgXDZSk2Hp2aUkniExxh6I2CB/QCggHju Z8oIccfhdgyYGHRZF9C3T0E= =+slM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
