On Tue 21 Oct 2014 at 22:54:19 +0200, lee wrote: > Brian <a...@cityscape.co.uk> writes: > > >> On Sun 19 Oct 2014 at 01:19:51 +0200, lee wrote: > >> > >> At least they are supporting others in breaking RFCs, and I wonder how > >> that could not be against their own interests. In any case, it > >> classifies them as (at least potentially very) unreliable. > > > > This is first time I've come across the concept of aiding and abetting > > the breaking of RFCs. :) > > They're supporting it by accepting and delivering or relaying messages > from MTAs (or perhaps MUAs) that don't comply to RFCs.
An RFC may have something to say about the expectations of what is accepted. I cannot think of one which specifies what you shouldn't accept. An example of the later would be useful. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/21102014234733.52ebd390f...@desktop.copernicus.demon.co.uk
