Joseph S D Yao wrote: > On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 08:55:50PM -0700, Richard Chycoski wrote: > ... > >> Using standards to detect spam is a problem, too. Just because a mail >> generator doesn't meet the full 'letter of the law' does not mean that >> it is generating spam. >> > ... > >> In the early days of RFC821/822, the BSD-and-related Unix systems were >> notoriously bad at receiving mail according to the RFC standards. ... >> > > > RFC 760 - "In general, an implementation should be conservative in its > sending behavior, and liberal in its receiving behavior." - St. Jon > Postel and colleagues. > > > Yes. Bouncing mail for minor infractions of the standard must be avoided unless you can show that *only* spam contains the infraction. >> It is important to deliver valid mail even from systems that are >> substandard. People depend upon these communications, and failing to dot >> an i or cross a t should cause the mail to fail. ... >> > > > s/should/should not/ ??? > > Er, yes. ;-)
- Richard _______________________________________________ Tech mailing list [email protected] http://lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
