** Reply to message from Bob Beck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Mon,
19 Mar 2007 09:40:52 -0600
>* Sid Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-03-19 03:25]:
>
>> > Regardless, if NOOP is in the SMTP standard, and spamd does not handle
>> > it correctly, that is a bug that needs to be fixed.
>
> Bullshit. that's not a good enough reason - spamd does not
>implement all of smtp, and never will. saying "it's in the smtp
>standard" is the wrong way to get anything into spamd :)
>
> OTOH, if there is real stuff from the century of the fruit bat
>that uses this I'll put it in. If it's someone's BBS mailer from
>the century of Def Leppard and Mullets I'm not bloating the code one line
>to deal with it. I've asked the poster for details. Anyone else who
>can confirm real stuff needing NOOP please let me know.
I certainly don't want to see spamd (or anything else) made
overcomplicated by "somebody might need that" code, but wouldn't it
make sense to include anything which is both in the standards and truly
trivial to implement sufficiently for spamd's purposes? It seems to me
that in those cases the cost to implement and maintain is so low as to
be worthwhile even if it only avoids relatively unlikely problems.
Dave
--
Dave Anderson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
