> So, you can take your petulant holier-than-thou attitude elsewhere.
ok, kiddies. please read your own example.
randy
At 10:01 PM -0400 2005-06-30, Todd Vierling wrote:
Um, I wasn't talking about an ISP. I was talking about the MUA with the
largest market share, and most frequently found security holes, which ships
with an OS I prefer not to name directly is possible.
There are three key pieces of the p
At 1:11 AM +0200 2005-07-01, Niels Bakker wrote:
Again, how do I configure my router for this?
The answer is: mail clients cannot be used to configure my routers.
Please take this silly discussion about your family elsewhere!
NANOG != routers
NANOG is about much more than just r
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005, Brad Knowles wrote:
> > I've done a look-see around my network and acquaintances a while ago, and
> > among them were quite a few mailers, all of which supported not only
> > alternate ports, but also SMTP AUTH. MSA support is far more available
> > than
> > this classic
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brad Knowles) [Fri 01 Jul 2005, 00:33 CEST]:
At 5:43 PM -0400 2005-06-30, Robert Boyle wrote:
Support them all and let your customers decide which ones work for them
based on their particular circumstances at the time and the network
they happen to be using.
That's g
At 5:43 PM -0400 2005-06-30, Robert Boyle wrote:
Support them all and let your customers decide which ones work for them
based on their particular circumstances at the time and the network
they happen to be using.
That's great, but that still doesn't solve the problem. The
problem is no
At 5:43 PM -0400 2005-06-30, Todd Vierling wrote:
I've done a look-see around my network and acquaintances a while ago, and
among them were quite a few mailers, all of which supported not only
alternate ports, but also SMTP AUTH. MSA support is far more available than
this classic FUD.
At 05:02 PM 6/30/2005, you wrote:
> Of course, if you're going to do this, you should also be doing
> at least SMTPAUTH and preferably TLSSMTP, but then again many clients
> are broken and don't support these technologies or don't support them
> correctly.
Or you support POP AUTH, which j
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005, Brad Knowles wrote:
> > In practice if your remote users don't use the submit port on your servers
> > it gives rise to all kinds of different issues involving you trying to
> > support the outbound filtering AOL is doing on your customers sending from
> > non AOL domains
At 2:02 PM -0700 2005-06-30, Mike Leber wrote:
In practice if your remote users don't use the submit port on your servers
it gives rise to all kinds of different issues involving you trying to
support the outbound filtering AOL is doing on your customers sending from
non AOL domains.
Tha
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005, Brad Knowles wrote:
> At 2:51 AM -0700 2005-06-29, Mike Leber wrote:
>
> > Ya, ya, ya... you are going to say 1) its impossible to get people to use
> > designated servers for outgoing email. Or you will say 2) even if you do
> > this there will still be *spam*! (egads s
At 2:51 AM -0700 2005-06-29, Mike Leber wrote:
Ya, ya, ya... you are going to say 1) its impossible to get people to use
designated servers for outgoing email. Or you will say 2) even if you do
this there will still be *spam*! (egads shock horrror!) Ugh please.
That's not the problem.
On 29/06/05, Mike Leber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm seeing alot of arguments in the form of "I have mobile users and they
> aren't going to be able to send email if you use injection IP mail
> filtering approach X" (where X is SPF, MX+, or what have you); which take
> the same form as the
Directed at no specific person because I've seen several people use it in
their examples recently...
I'm seeing alot of arguments in the form of "I have mobile users and they
aren't going to be able to send email if you use injection IP mail
filtering approach X" (where X is SPF, MX+, or what h
14 matches
Mail list logo
