The only problem I can foresee is that I remember reading somewhere that some MTAs use NOOP as a kind of keep-alive at times. This may be an issue depending on how those MTAs deal with not getting the 250 response from SPAMD they were expecting.
Tim. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Anderson Sent: Tuesday, 20 March 2007 6:03 AM Cc: OpenBSD Misc Subject: Re: NOOP and Spamd ** 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]>
