On Sun, Jun 19, 2005 at 05:23:31PM -0400, Greg A. Woods wrote: > Error handling in SMTP (i.e. the use of newly generated notifications > messages which are sent to the original sender address, and with a null > sender path) is a core feature and requirement of the SMTP protocol. It > is inherent in its store-and-forward design and it "MUST" (STD's 3 & 10) > not be messed with if e-mail is to enjoy any degree of robustness and > reliability. > > Therefore a robust implementation of SMTP "MUST" make it difficult for > an ignorant postmaster to purposefully screw up e-mail error handling.
I guess this would include not rejecting HELOs based on the forward/reverse DNS checks like, oh, your smail. So what you're saying is, smail prevents reliable error handling by your broken DNS checks, but that's not broken; Exim allows you to break (by use of a language that is almost, but not quite complete) certain aspects of the protocol (see above) but that is. If it were to give you a message saying "550 badly configured host most.weird.com", after that final dot, would you still be upset with exim? (In this case, I do suspect clueless admins, but the point holds). Cheers MBM -- Matthew Byng-Maddick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://colondot.net/ (Please use this address to reply) -- ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://www.exim.org/eximwiki/
