On 2018-03-01 08:14, John Fawcett wrote:
On 01/03/18 05:09, J Doe wrote:
Hi John,
On Feb 27, 2018, at 3:25 PM, John Fawcett
wrote:
I can't think of a compelling reason either to enable VRFY or to
disable
it. Disabling it stops people abusing it, but then they can just
On 01/03/18 05:09, J Doe wrote:
> Hi John,
>
>> On Feb 27, 2018, at 3:25 PM, John Fawcett wrote:
>> I can't think of a compelling reason either to enable VRFY or to disable
>> it. Disabling it stops people abusing it, but then they can just use
>> RCPT TO to get the same
Hi John,
> On Feb 27, 2018, at 3:25 PM, John Fawcett wrote:
> I can't think of a compelling reason either to enable VRFY or to disable
> it. Disabling it stops people abusing it, but then they can just use
> RCPT TO to get the same information in most cases. I disabled it
On 27/02/18 20:36, J Doe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I read in both the Postfix man file (man 5 postconf), and the SMTP RFC
> (5321), that VRFY can be disabled on a site-by-site basis.
>
> I disabled this on my server for port 25 but am wondering if I should leave
> this enabled on my Postfix instance that
Hi,
I read in both the Postfix man file (man 5 postconf), and the SMTP RFC (5321),
that VRFY can be disabled on a site-by-site basis.
I disabled this on my server for port 25 but am wondering if I should leave
this enabled on my Postfix instance that provides submission (587) ? I have