On 2013-06-27 22:12, Gilles Chehade wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 02:58:22PM -0300, Hugo Osvaldo Barrera wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> 
> > I've been failing to receive some automated emails from both yahoo
> > and gmail.
> > The error smtpd is printing out is:
> > 
> > Jun 27 17:40:02 elysion smtpd[17570]: smtp-in: Failed command on session 
> > 00002741922c17e6: "MAIL 
> > FROM:<reg.mfsg22logixg2zlnmjsxeltomuys46lbnbxw6ltdn5ws2mjtg4zdgnjuhayta-hugo=osvaldobarrera.com...@returns.bulk.yahoo.com>"
> >  => 553 Sender address syntax error
> > 
> > I'm wondering what the syntax error is. I tried looking at the RFCs a
> > bit, but I've not found anything (though I'm sure that I skipped some
> > important part).
> > 
> > Is the "=" an invalid character, or does the address size exceed the
> > limit?
> >
> 
> It probably is the address size, '=' is an acceptable character.
> With release, we had a maximum user-part of 64 bytes, which was what RFC
> suggested. We bumped this post-release after an exchange with the FreeBSD
> maintainer and one of the guys who wrote the RFC.

So you're accepting even those that exceed the maximum? What's the current 
maximum?

> 
> What version are you running ?

That would by my primary MX that runs the version from OpenBSD 5.3-current
from about a month ago.
So yes, it is pretty old. :D

> 
> 
> > As an informtive note, I've noticed that these same automated emails
> > (google groups invites, and yahoo password recoveries) fail to reach
> > their recipients if the recipients are using hotmail.com/outlook.com,
> > amongst other popular email providers some friends use, so I don't
> > strictly think smtpd is doing something wrong - I'm just curious as to
> > what's wrong with those addresses.
> >
> 
> People using SMTP have been assuming infinite size in email addresses...

I see. It's somewhat interesting how *some* major providers are rejecting
these emails, while other accept them. Lots of those emails clearly
don't make it through.

> 
> 
> > Please note that I'm not complaining about this issue; I'm just asking
> > what's wrong with this address and what RFC I should read (so yes,
> > it *is* slighlty OT).
> > 
> 
> Nope, perfectly on topic ;-)
> 

Thanks, very informative.

> 
> -- 
> Gilles Chehade
> 
> https://www.poolp.org                                          @poolpOrg

-- 
Hugo Osvaldo Barrera

Attachment: pgpqVUVTBeCNm.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to