Re: [exim4] Testing and making sense of smtp output
Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> writes:
> 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.
Yes --- perhaps you can send them a comment?
--
Again we must be afraid of speaking of daemons for fear that daemons
might swallow us. Finally, this fear has become reasonable.
Reply to: