Re: [exim4] Testing and making sense of smtp output
On Tue 21 Oct 2014 at 22:54:19 +0200, lee wrote:
> 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.
An RFC may have something to say about the expectations of what is
accepted. I cannot think of one which specifies what you shouldn't
accept. An example of the later would be useful.
Reply to: