On Oct 6, 5:23pm, George Roberts wrote:
}
} If one looks carefully, RFC 5321 3.7.2 states:
}
} "As another consequence of trace header fields arising in non-SMTP
} environments, receiving systems MUST NOT reject mail based on the
} format of a trace header field and SHOULD be extremely robust in the
} light of unexpected information or formats in those header fields."
}
} I'm not going to quote the whole RFC to you, but from what I've read
} it's pretty clear that the Received: line is for debugging purposes
} ("... the most important use of Received: lines is for debugging
} mail faults ...", Section 3.7.2). I'm hard-pressed to find any
} justification for blocking of mail generated or handled by Exchange.
} In fact, I think it's pretty clear the RFC states you MUST NOT block
} them.
No RFC can tell you what you MUST or MUST NOT block. That is a
local policy issue under the control of whatever authority is
responsible for a site. Do I think this is a silly policy that is
likely to cause major problems? Given the amount of mail that passes
through exchange servers, of course I do. But, it is his policy to
make and his right to do so.
} -----Original Message-----
} From: mimedefang-boun...@lists.roaringpenguin.com [mailto:mimedefang-bounce=
} s...@lists.roaringpenguin.com] On Behalf Of kd6...@yahoo.com
} Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 5:23 PM
} To: mimedefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com
}
} --- On Wed, 5/16/12, David F. Skoll <d...@roaringpenguin.com> wrote:
} > After gnashing my teeth at Microsoft because its dumb software ignores
} > Precedence: and List-*: headers and cheerfully sends out-of-office
} > replies to list owners, I discovered this:
} >
} > http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee219609%28v=3Dexchg.80%29.aspx
} >
} > I've set up a MIMEDefang filter to add X-Auto-Response-Suppress: OOF
} > to all list traffic.=A0 Just passing it along as a tip to other list
} > owners.
}
} I take a stronger approach: Since M$ Exchange is incapable of generating p=
} roper "Received:" headers, I reject all mail which has transited such a sys=
} tem using that software.
}
} If one looks carefully, their chosen syntax violates even the old RFC 821/8=
} 22 standards (STD 10), let alone the 5321/5322 modern versions.
}
}-- End of excerpt from George Roberts
_______________________________________________
NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above
message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it.
Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com
MIMEDefang mailing list MIMEDefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com
http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
