Re: Antigen found =*.pif file
"Joel Baker" <lucifer@lightbearer.com> writes:
> Carlos Sousa wrote:
>> I agree this *has* to be a bug. Relaying MTAs should not take over
>> important mail headers, that's dangerously close to mail forgery...
>
> I don't think that declaring something which complies with RFC 2821/2822
> (the core SMTP-based email RFCs) is a good idea.
I can't parse this sentence. Is some of it missing?
> The message should not have left the remote server without a
> qualified domain, but this is a bug in *their* implementation, *not*
> in the receiving MTA.
Bugs can exist in more than one place; that's one reason why people
feel the need to write down things like the robustness principle. A
bug over there doesn't excuse software over here from sensible
behaviour.
In this case it is a bug that the message was emitted at all (mailing
lists should not be bothered with virus warnings); that it had an
invalid From: field (messages ought to have a syntax that meets the
relevant standards; and that it was modified from an invalid address
to a different definitely incorrect address by some receiving systems
(the rewritten address might actually be deliverable, and it's
certainly misleading).
My question, though, was one much more directly relevant to this
forum: whether any of those receiving systems ran Debian - which
no-one seems to have answered.
An obvious related question would be whether any of the MTA packages
in Debian exhibit this bug; so far we've established that Exim has
correct defaults, but little else.
Would anyone familiar with the other MTAs that Debian packages care to
provide any hard facts?
--
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: