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

Re: Recipient validation - WAS: Re: Moderated posts?



On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 06:54:09 -0400
Tanstaafl <tanstaafl@libertytrek.org> wrote:

Hello Tanstaafl,

>On 10/15/2014 5:12 PM, Brad Rogers <brad@fineby.me.uk> wrote:
>> Send an email with a large attachment(1) and there are quite a few
>> servers that will silently drop it.  
>Anyone who does that is breaking SMTP. If you don't want messages over 

Yes, that's the point.

>certain size, REJECT them, but absolutely do not EVER accept then
>silently delete them, that is just plain stupid.

Oh I agree, wholeheartedly.  As I said in my reply to Joe, I suspect
it's part of a misguided anti-malware program.

>> The worst of it is you can never know for certain if you're going to
>> get "bitten" because routing can vary.  
>It isn't about routing problems, it is about properly configuring your
>toolset.

What I meant was that, since at any given time a route from A-B can vary
due to, for example a server being down, you can't be sure which route
the mail will take and therefore, which server(s) it'll pass through and
what their reject/drop rules are.  So, not routing per se, but
unpredictable consequences of passing through certain servers.

>> (1) 4Meg or so used to do the trick.  Things might be different now s
>Google accepts 25MB+, as does Outlook.com and most other freemailers
>now. That is our limit here too.

Things are much better than I hoped then.  I'll keep that in mind for
future use.  Thanks.

-- 
 Regards  _
         / )           "The blindingly obvious is
        / _)rad        never immediately apparent"
I must be hallucinating, watching angels celebrating
There Must Be An Angel (Playing With My Heart) - Eurythmics

Attachment: pgpc3AxPrxUS_.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Reply to: