On Fri, 6 Feb 2009, Ian Eiloart wrote: > --On 6 February 2009 14:50:19 +0000 Jethro R Binks <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > (Although, the same argument is useable here as against greylisting > > and other techniques: once a critical mass of receiving servers > > implement these techniques, it will be worth the while of spammers to > > accomodate them, play by the rules, design better SMTP engines, in > > order to get their mail past the techniques. But I think we're a long > > way to go yet, and there's probably a huge legacy of crap spammy SMTP > > clients out there that are easily defeatable.). > > Yes, but this isn't just about spam. It's also about not accepting > emails with malformed address headers. Those addresses aren't just there > to look pretty, they're used by MUAs and even MTAs to address replies. > If the From:, To: or Cc: header is malformed, then the replies may also > be malformed, or misdirected.
You and I know that it's not just about spam, but sometimes you have to stretch the truth a little in order to get the point across. Fact is, I fundamentally believe that we should absolutely not accept any mail that absolutely does not conform to the required standards. No point having standards if you don't stand up for them. Unfortunately, that belief is a bit too fundamental for most of my user's tastes. So I grant a little bit of slack and leeway, and don't act quite so strictly (while reserving my right to do so at another time), and for the remaining fundamentalism, I have to present it in ways that end users find easier to understand -- it has to be applied rather than theoretical fundamentalism. Easiest way to do that is to use concepts like "protection", and the easiest 'bad guys' to explain about, that all end users understand, are the spammers. Then they can relate to my actions better. So, yes, sometimes I am a little loose in the language I use or the explanations I give, but deliberately so. Sometimes, anyway. Sometimes I just can't help but tell them the ugly truth: that the expensive email product they are using is just plain downright broken, and they should return it to the vendor as unfit for purpose :) Jethro. -- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jethro R Binks Computing Officer, IT Services, University Of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK -- ## List details at http://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
