On Mon, 2006-07-10 at 10:26 -0700, John Rudd wrote: > > On Jul 10, 2006, at 7:57 AM, Michael Lang wrote: > > If you're going to be a stickler about what the RFC says, in what you > require about the sender, then it's probably a good idea to be a > stickler about the RFC in how your server operates as well. > Specifically, you may not refuse the message based upon the HELO > argument.
uupps .. maybe i pointed out this one, the wrong way ... what i meant was that, putting in your filter (oct.oct.oct.oct) today and tomorror the next, doesn't make sense. It's the wrong way of 'ALLOW ALL, DENY ...' > My point being: Seems rather hypocritical to complain about the lack of > merits of the client based upon lack of RFC compliance ... while > advocating lack of RFC compliance in your server. in my filter RFC ignorant client Mails get additional SpamScore added, but as written above, i pointed it out wrong ... Kind regards Michael Lang > _______________________________________________ > NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above > message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. > > Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com > MIMEDefang mailing list [email protected] > http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang -- Michael Lang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list [email protected] http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
