On Wed, 23 May 2012 11:49:56 -0700 (PDT)
[email protected] wrote:
> Wrong. It directly states that we can't reject on the basis of
> trying to enforce SMTP trace header syntax upon non-SMTP trace
> headers. That is all.
Nope. It says:
"As another consequence of trace header fields arising in non-SMTP
environments, receiving systems MUST NOT reject mail based on the
format of a trace header field and SHOULD be extremely robust in
the light of unexpected information or formats in those header
fields."
Read it carefully: It says non-standard header fields may arise
in non-SMTP environments. It says we MUST NOT reject mail based on
the format of a trace header field. That's *any* trace header field,
whether generated by SMTP or not.
[In fact, you could argue circularly that since Microsoft Exchange is
not SMTP-compliant, it is not an "SMTP" environment and therefore its
Received: headers should be accepted. :)]
[...]
> Precisely, and as spammers often generate non-compliant messages,
Do you have data to support that? My feeling is that spammers are no
more non-compliant than legitimate senders.
> Given that, tell me why I should accept any inproperly formatted
> message, especially when spammers fail to comply?
Again, what *you* do personally is your business. I just don't think
your recommendations are good for most people, nor is this specific
policy justifiable by appealing to the RFCs.
> cf. https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6781
Yes, I see your comment, but you dismissed
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6781#c9 with
a rather ingeneous redefinition of spam ("If it violates the RFC, it's
not a valid message.")
Regards,
David.
_______________________________________________
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
