[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: greylisting on debian.org?

This one time, at band camp, Thomas Bushnell BSG said:
> So the meaning of 4xx is "temporary local problem".  Sending that when
> you don't have a temporary local problem is a violation, right there.
> Must the standard repeat after every sentence, "oh, and don't lie".

Actually, that's just the error message most MTA's give out.  The RFC
has finer grained meanings for the range of 4xx messages.  Would you be
happier if greylisting gave back a 451 (error in processing)?  This is
factually true - processing began, but one of the preconditions failed.
That is not a lie.

You might want to go back and reread the RFCs about all of this.
Most of what you are saying isn't actually in the RFCs, but is part of
the mythology that has grown up around them.  Try to find 'be liberal in
what you accept ... ' in RFC 2821.  Notice also that local site policy
_always_ trumps the RFC, but with a note to the effect that you _should_
(not must) take care to not violate interoperability when implementing
site policy.  I would argue greylisting doesn't violate interoperability.

But maybe you have another assertion.
|   ,''`.                                            Stephen Gran |
|  : :' :                                        sgran@debian.org |
|  `. `'                        Debian user, admin, and developer |
|    `-                                     http://www.debian.org |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: