On Fri, 07 Sep 2001, Dave Sill wrote:
> >2. kill the postmaster aliases, we're sure that the smarthost has a
> > postmaster and proper virtual mapping and will catch the mail.
>
> Not OK. Postmaster is not optional.
Non-issue, locals is empty, ~alias is never catered for. In fact,
~alias/.qmail-postmaster still exists.
> QMQP requires fewer round trips. For high-latency connections, this
> could be important.
You don't usually have high-latency and pre-authentication on the same
link. High-latency connections can still use ESMTP PIPELINING which is
there.
> >"Keep it simple, stupid." qmail-send was a tad too stupid when creating
> >the bounce. It must be able to ultimately send its bounce across SMTP,
> >lest it be accused of trashing innocent mail.
>
> Non-RFC-compliant mail is not innocent.
Hu? No-one said QMQP would require RFC-compliant mail. qmail-remote is
the only place that mentions this. qmail-inject silently fixes missing
newlines. So what?
> >And that's what you get for ignoring RFC-1894 and 2045..2049 for your
> >bounces, they also fail.
>
> Preachin' that ol' time DSN religion, Matthias?
Nope. See my reply to Paul's mail.
--
Matthias Andree
Outlook (Express) users: press Ctrl+F3 for the full source code of this post.
begin dont_click_this_virus.exe
end
