Sadly, it seems that more and more mail servers are RFC-apathetic :-( And the admins even more so... It almost seems the larger the company the less likely to follow RFCs (IME).
There there's people like spamcop who think that RFCs are ok for some things but not for others :-( </sigh> --Harry Paul Schmehl wrote: > --On Wednesday, February 06, 2008 12:25:19 -0500 Harry Hoffman > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> You just need to take it a step further :-) >> >> ... >> rcpt to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> 250 recipient <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ok >> data >> 354 go ahead >> Testing >> . >> >> 554 delivery error: dd This user doesn't have a yahoo.com account >> ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [0] - >> mta367.mail.mud.yahoo.com >> 421 Service not available, closing transmission channel. >> Connection closed by foreign host. >> >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>> On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 10:44:10 CST, Paul Schmehl said: >>> >>>> RCPT TO: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>> 250 recipient <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ok >>> % telnet f.mx.mail.yahoo.com 25 >>> ... >>> rcpt to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> 250 recipient <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ok >>> >>> Yee. Hah. They 250 for a probably-nonexistent account (unless that >>> one actually *does* exist? :) >>> > > They're also the first mail server I've ever connected to that won't accept > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and insists on <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> instead. So, I'm not > surprised to find that they 250 everything you type in. > > I guess RFCs are even more meaningless now than they always have been. :-( > > BTW, privately I was informed that the *real* address is [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Who knew. > _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
