I'm having a bit of an argument with a customer over the command syntax
in RFC 2821 that shows command arguments for MAIL/RCPT commands in
brackets, i.e.:
Path = [ A-d-l : ] Mailbox
Mailbox = Local-part @ Domain
Our mail servers reject connections that don't follow the RFC. Am I
wrong to
On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 07:51:15AM -0800, Seth Mattinen wrote:
Our mail servers reject connections that don't follow the RFC. Am I wrong
to do this?
Nope. His software is either misconfigured or broken.
I'm aware of the be-liberal-in-what-you-accept philosophy (and followed
it for many
On Jan 4, 2008 10:51 AM, Seth Mattinen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Our mail servers reject connections that don't follow the RFC. Am I
wrong to do this?
Seth,
RFC 1122 (Requirements for Internet Hosts - Communication Layers)
section 1.2.2 (Robustness Principle):
Be liberal in
his arguments is even hotmail does not keep
up the standards and if we ignore them as
It sounds like he's admitting that the RFC is correct, but since Hotmail
will accept malformed messages, so should everyone else. He basically
wants you to adjust your server to be more lax so he doesn't
On Jan 4, 2008 11:27 AM, Joe Greco [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Be liberal in what you accept, and
That particular philosophy has done great wonders for e-mail and the spam
problem
Joe,
I've heard similarly unsubstantiated versions of this claim over and
over. The fact is I've
On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 10:27:47AM -0600, Joe Greco wrote:
That particular philosophy has done great wonders for e-mail and the spam
problem,
I completely agree. If it weren't for that philosophy, we wouldn't
have an email problem at all.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
On Jan 4, 2008 5:52 PM, Andrew Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I completely agree. If it weren't for that philosophy, we wouldn't
have an email problem at all.
A
Becausewe wouldn't have e-mail? Consider the pain of getting worldwide
interoperability for a notmail system that
Folks,
Let's bring this one to closure. The authors question is answered and
this is backing itself into an endless thread with arguments better
suited for the IETF vs. NANOG.
Best Regards,
Martin Hannigan
NANOG Mailing List Committee
On Jan 4, 2008 1:02 PM, Alexander Harrowell [EMAIL
On Jan 4, 2008 6:02 PM, Rick Astley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I know large mostly unused pools of client IP's make it more difficult to
use traditional worm propagation methods in IPv6[1], but if customers move
from IPv4 firewalls to IPv6 routers, we still lose an important layer of
security.
9 matches
Mail list logo
