On 2005-07-04 07:46:50 -0700, Ask Bjørn Hansen wrote: > On Jul 3, 2005, at 1:21 PM, Peter J. Holzer wrote: > > >Yeah, you've seen this one before. I'm just stubborn about it :-) > > Let's bikeshed for a moment: Will it stop any spam?
It used to. Looking back through the last few days of logfiles, I cannot
find any occurrences, however. All the "501 could not parse your mail
from command" messages are caused by other errors (usually a space just
before the closing >, or a missing "." in the hostname[0]). So whatever
spamware or virus that was, it doesn't seem to target our mailservers at
the moment.
> Does any of the big SMTPDs reject mail without <>?
No, I don't think so. But then, they don't reject mail without an EHLO
or HELO, either, but qpsmtpd does.
What's more important: Does it reject any legitimate mails? I don't
remember when I added that check, but I think it was at least a year
ago, and so far nobody has complained.
hp
[0] Actually, I think that's an error in the RFC - I don't see why a
sufficiently small TLD (say .va or one of the pacific islands) shouldn't
issue mailaddresses of the form <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. Also RFC 2822 allows
that form, and RFC 2821 doesn't, which is inconsistent.
--
_ | Peter J. Holzer | Ich sehe nun ein, dass Computer wenig
|_|_) | Sysadmin WSR | geeignet sind, um sich was zu merken.
| | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
__/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | -- Holger Lembke in dan-am
pgp7NSO97R3Pg.pgp
Description: PGP signature
