On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 08:29:42PM -0400, Hubbard, David wrote:
> Well first off, can someone explain to me the reasoning
> behind the bare linefeed restriction?  I hope it is an actual
> standard that this restriction is trying to make other MTA's
> adhere to.
> 
> So anyway, 2 questions:
> 
> 1)  Does anyone have a list of commonly used mail
> servers that violate this?  Personally, I've seen a few
> instances of mail servers going crazy hitting me once
> per second trying to deliver mail and just getting
> status 256 over and over, I'm thinking it's probably the
> bare linefeed thing causing this behavior and if they're
> on a bigger pipe than my qmail server, it really hurts
> my connection.  I'd really like to know which servers
> might exhibit this behavior.  Most recently, I tried to
> sign up for an eval version of Legato's backup software
> and all I see in my mail logs is a connection from
> augusta2.legato.com every four hours with a status
> of 256, nice huh?

qmail doesn't return an error code of 256 for the bare lf problem, it returns
553.

> 2)  The important question now is, what kind of error
> does the user get when their mail server finally
> gives up?  Does it look like the mail was just
> undeliverable?  I know qmail issues the error code
> that causes the mail server to try again.  After that
> time on the remote server expires, I'm worried that
> users who may be mailing someone at a domain I
> host will be getting an error message that makes it
> look like a problem with my mail server, pissing my
> customers off at me.

Did you actually read any of the online documentation about this, including
but not limited to http://cr.yp.to/docs/smtplf.html, the FAQ and relevant
RFC's?

--Adam

-- 
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | "No matter how much it changes, 
http://flounder.net/publickey.html   |  technology's just a bunch of wires 
GPG: 17A4 11F7 5E7E C2E7 08AA        |  connected to a bunch of other wires."
     38B0 05D0 8BF7 2C6D 110A        |  Joe Rogan, _NewsRadio_
  8:31pm  up 138 days, 17:47,  9 users,  load average: 0.07, 0.07, 0.02

Reply via email to