> Exchange uses SMTP but generates a syntactically incorrect header. Similarly
> with Google's gmail (it often omits the "from" clause when required),
> Yahoo's use of an unregistered protocol ("with NNFMP"*), qmail, and of late,
> exim.
Do you also then block mail from Gmail, Yahoo, qmail and ex
On Mon, 2012-05-21 at 12:22 -0700, kd6...@yahoo.com wrote:
> --- On Mon, 5/21/12, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
> > On Don, 2012-05-17 at 16:02 -0700, kd6...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > ...
> > > Beliefs like yours are the problem. Policies like mine cause the
> > > solution.
> >
> > Perhaps it is more an
kd6...@yahoo.com wrote:
>When Yahoo was asked about NNFMP, its help-desk staff indicated in
>2009 that any message which contains it is not real but a forgery.
Although I get plenty of spam containing "with NNFMP" in a Received
header, as recently as last September I saw it in a real Yahoo message
--- On Mon, 5/21/12, George Roberts wrote:
> I'm sort of sorry I started this
> whole thing, LOL. Just so I have some clarity on the issue,
> could someone please explain to me what exactly it is that
> Exchange does with Received: headers that is so bad? I
> see Received: lines from various mail
-boun...@lists.roaringpenguin.com] On Behalf Of Les Mikesell
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 5:02 PM
To: mimedefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com
Subject: Re: [Mimedefang] X-Auto-Response-Suppress header
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 4:47 PM, wrote:
>
> 2) You still haven't said why I should accept any message wh
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 4:47 PM, wrote:
>
> 2) You still haven't said why I should accept any message which violates the
> standards. Malformed messages should be rejected for precisely that reason
> -- ALWAYS.
1) Why do you bother with email at all if you don't care about the content?
2) T
On Mon, 21 May 2012 14:47:18 -0700 (PDT)
kd6...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Rejecting communication with Microsoft Exchange is an interesting
> > position to take and I sympathise on a philosophical level, but it's
> > tilting at windmills. Completely impractical if you actually rely
> > on email for bu
--- On Mon, 5/21/12, David F. Skoll wrote:
> On Mon, 21 May 2012 12:22:39 -0700 (PDT) kd6...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Definently not. A rejected message (returned to the sender) gets
> > more action (or administrative notice) than one accepted as spam
> > therefore unanswered.
>
> Rejecting a mes
On Mon, 21 May 2012 12:22:39 -0700 (PDT)
kd6...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Definently not. A rejected message (returned to the sender) gets
> more action (or administrative notice) than one accepted as spam
> therefore unanswered.
Rejecting a message containing an X-Auto-Response-Suppress is not only
po
--- On Mon, 5/21/12, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
> On Don, 2012-05-17 at 16:02 -0700, kd6...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > ...
> > Beliefs like yours are the problem. Policies like mine cause the
> > solution.
>
> Perhaps it is more annoying if you add these rules to SpamAssassin and
> score spam points for
On Don, 2012-05-17 at 16:02 -0700, kd6...@yahoo.com wrote:
> --- On Thu, 5/17/12, Kris Deugau wrote:
> > ...All that said Your system, your policy.
>
> In that case, why have standards at all if the results from
> non-compliant software will be accepted anyway? Rejection of
What misses he
On Thu, 17 May 2012 16:02:18 -0700 (PDT)
kd6...@yahoo.com wrote:
> In that case, why have standards at all if the results from
> non-compliant software will be accepted anyway? Rejection of
> non-standard data (including messages) should give sufficient
> motivation to fix broken software.
There
On May 17, 2012, at 6:02 PM, kd6...@yahoo.com wrote:
> In that case, why have standards at all if the results from non-compliant
> software will be accepted anyway? Rejection of non-standard data (including
> messages) should give sufficient motivation to fix broken software.
>
Except in the
--- On Thu, 5/17/12, Kris Deugau wrote:
> ...All that said Your system, your policy.
In that case, why have standards at all if the results from non-compliant
software will be accepted anyway? Rejection of non-standard data (including
messages) should give sufficient motivation to fix br
kd6...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I take a stronger approach: Since M$ Exchange is incapable of generating
> proper "Received:" headers, I reject all mail which has transited such a
> system using that software.
>
> If one looks carefully, their chosen syntax violates even the old RFC 821/822
> standa
On Wed, 16 May 2012 15:22:59 -0700 (PDT)
kd6...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I take a stronger approach: Since M$ Exchange is incapable of
> generating proper "Received:" headers, I reject all mail which has
> transited such a system using that software.
Yes, well. I can't control what SMTP server softwa
--- On Wed, 5/16/12, 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 robus
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
medefang-boun...@lists.roaringpenguin.com] On Behalf Of
kd6...@yahoo.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 5:23 PM
To: mimedefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com
Subject: Re: [Mimedefang] X-Auto-Response-Suppress header
--- On Wed, 5/16/12, David F. Skoll wrote:
> After gnashing my teeth at Microsoft bec
--- On Wed, 5/16/12, David F. Skoll 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=exchg.80%2
On 5/16/2012 4:02 PM, David F. Skoll wrote:
Hi, all,
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=exchg.80
Hi, all,
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=exchg.80%29.aspx
I've set up a MIMEDefang filter to a
22 matches
Mail list logo
