Re: [exim4] Testing and making sense of smtp output
Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> writes:
>> On Sun 19 Oct 2014 at 01:19:51 +0200, lee wrote:
>>
>> At least they are supporting others in breaking RFCs, and I wonder how
>> that could not be against their own interests. In any case, it
>> classifies them as (at least potentially very) unreliable.
>
> This is first time I've come across the concept of aiding and abetting
> the breaking of RFCs. :)
They're supporting it by accepting and delivering or relaying messages
from MTAs (or perhaps MUAs) that don't comply to RFCs.
This isn't a new concept at all. If you were transporting messages for
some illegal organisation, you might go to jail because you'd be
considered as supporting the illegal organisation or as a member of it.
Lend someone your gun so they can shoot someone; transport bank robbers
away from the bank they robbed, and you may go to jail for the support
you gave them.
> (The idea that you are unreliable because you act differently is a very
> dangerous one).
It is entirely irrelevant whether they "act differently" or not.
"Acting differently" is no more an excuse for a misconfigured MTA than
it is for going around robbing banks and/or shooting people.
All the while it seems reasonable to me to question the reliability of
misconfigured MTAs. Never forget that you're responsible for the
correct handling of messages your MTA has accepted. Either accept this
responsibility and configure your MTA correctly, or don't run one.
If you were the treasurer of a kingdom, would you entrust the kingdoms'
treasures to bank robbers and murderers because that they "act
differently" doesn't necessarily mean that they are unreliable? When
the king finds out, you might find yourself beheaded before you can even
begin to argue with him. Otherwise that king sucks ;)
--
Again we must be afraid of speaking of daemons for fear that daemons
might swallow us. Finally, this fear has become reasonable.
Reply to: