On 10/16/2014 7:31 AM, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 06:50:01AM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
>> Anyone who runs a mail server and doesn't monitor the postmaster address
>> shouldn't be running a mail server.
> Tell that to yahoo, they *don't seem* to have a postmaster address nor an
On 16/10/14 22:31, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 06:50:01AM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
>>
>> Anyone who runs a mail server and doesn't keep logs shouldn't be running
>> a mail server.
>>
>> *And* the postmaster address monitored,
>>
>> Anyone who runs a mail server and doesn't moni
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 06:50:01AM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
>
> Anyone who runs a mail server and doesn't keep logs shouldn't be running
> a mail server.
>
> *And* the postmaster address monitored,
>
> Anyone who runs a mail server and doesn't monitor the postmaster address
> shouldn't be runnin
On 10/15/2014 4:58 PM, Joe wrote:
> It's worth some effort, at the moment it is the single most effective
> anti-spam measure. If you outsource your mail, it's worth going to some
> trouble to find a hosting company who will hold and accept updates for
> a list of valid recipients.
Or even easier
On 10/15/2014 3:13 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Tanstaafl wrote:
>> 1. email to invalid recipients should be rejected at the RCPT-TO stage,
> Easier said then done - at least when a server does relaying, but
> clearly ideal when possible.
No, it is 100% easily done.
For servers under your contr
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 15:13:27 -0400
Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Tanstaafl wrote:
> > My position is that:
> >
> > 1. email to invalid recipients should be rejected at the RCPT-TO
> > stage,
>
> Easier said then done - at least when a server does relaying, but
> clearly ideal when possible.
>
It's
Tanstaafl wrote:
On 10/15/2014 12:50 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
I'll close by noting that this branch of discussion started with a focus
on silently dropping spam, and whether that's a violation of standards.
Actually, no, this branch started with a focus on whether or not it is a
good idea to
On 10/15/2014 12:50 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> I'll close by noting that this branch of discussion started with a focus
> on silently dropping spam, and whether that's a violation of standards.
Actually, no, this branch started with a focus on whether or not it is a
good idea to break SMTP by a
Joel Rees wrote:
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 9:01 PM, Miles Fidelman
wrote:
Tanstaafl wrote:
On 10/14/2014 1:58 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Well, this really is OT for debian-users, but Turns out that SMTP
WAS/IS intended to be reliable.
Reliable, absolutely. 100% reliable? That simply isn't
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 9:01 PM, Miles Fidelman
wrote:
> Tanstaafl wrote:
>>
>> On 10/14/2014 1:58 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>>>
>>> Well, this really is OT for debian-users, but Turns out that SMTP
>>> WAS/IS intended to be reliable.
>>
>> Reliable, absolutely. 100% reliable? That simply is
Tanstaafl wrote:
On 10/14/2014 1:58 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Well, this really is OT for debian-users, but Turns out that SMTP
WAS/IS intended to be reliable.
Reliable, absolutely. 100% reliable? That simply isn't possible when
people are involved in the equation (people mis-configure se
On 10/14/2014 1:58 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Well, this really is OT for debian-users, but Turns out that SMTP
> WAS/IS intended to be reliable.
Reliable, absolutely. 100% reliable? That simply isn't possible when
people are involved in the equation (people mis-configure servers -
whether
Well, this really is OT for debian-users, but Turns out that SMTP
WAS/IS intended to be reliable.
I'd always lumped SMTP in the category of unreliable protocols, w/o
guaranteed delivery - but then, being a bit pedantic, I went back to the
source RFC 821, SMTP, authored by Jon Postel, and
13 matches
Mail list logo
