On Wed, Jan 13, 1999 at 02:52:50AM +0100, Rask Ingemann Lambertsen wrote: > >>Qmail does not support RBL, right out of the box. > > > Nor should it. There's an add-on to do that. > > RBL support, these days, in a world that isn't as perfect as qmail was > designed to view it, is not an option, but rather a requirement. Out of the > box. But as long as you are not allowed to distribute such a setup, there is > little point in discussing it. I use qmail to deliver intranet mail. Why do I need RBL? In general, why should the MTA writer be able to dictate what anti-spam measures I am and am not taking? -- John White [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP Public Key: http://www.triceratops.com/john/public-key.pgp
- Re: Why Red Hat is not distributing qmail Justin Bell
- Re: Why Red Hat is not distributing qmail Justin Bell
- Re: Why Red Hat is not distributing qmail Dave Sill
- Re: Why Red Hat is not distributing qmail Peter C. Norton
- Re: Why Red Hat is not distributing qmail Dave Sill
- Re: Why Red Hat is not distributing qmail Sam
- Vendors and tied hands Len Budney
- Re: Vendors and tied hands Edward S. Marshall
- rblsmtpd error codes D. J. Bernstein
- Re: Why Red Hat is not distributing qmail Rask Ingemann Lambertsen
- Re: Why Red Hat is not distributing qmail johnjohn
- Re: Why Red Hat is not distributing qmail D. J. Bernstein
- Re: Why Red Hat is not distributing qmail ddb
- Re: Why Red Hat is not distributing qmail Sam
- Re: Why Red Hat is not distributing qmail ddb
- Example of the anti-fax effect D. J. Bernstein
- Re: Example of the anti-fax effect Sam
- Re: Example of the anti-fax effect Russell Nelson
- Re: Why Red Hat is not distributing qmail Scott Schwartz
- Re: Why Red Hat is not distributing qmail Mate Wierdl
- Re: Why Red Hat is not distributing qmail Bart Blanquart
