Re: [exim] RFC 5321, 5322

On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 05:18 +0800, W B Hacker wrote: > Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote: > > Exim's behaviour is "guess what was meant". it actually checks the line > > ending of the first line in the message to determine what convention the > > sender prefers. if it sends CRLF, Exim will *only* accept

Re: [exim] RFC 5321, 5322

Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote: > On Fri, 2008-10-03 at 14:53 +0200, Renaud Allard wrote: >> I was just browsing RFC 5321 (not finished reading yet) >> It seems it implies that exim is not RFC 5321 compliant, for example: >> " >> Lines consist of zero or more data characters terminated by the >>

Re: [exim] RFC 5321, 5322

On Fri, 2008-10-03 at 14:53 +0200, Renaud Allard wrote: > I was just browsing RFC 5321 (not finished reading yet) > It seems it implies that exim is not RFC 5321 compliant, for example: > " > Lines consist of zero or more data characters terminated by the > sequence ASCII character "CR" (he

Re: [exim] RFC 5321, 5322

>>> I propose an SMTP extension, allowing two hosts to switch into >>> LMTP, which does permit this. The LMTP protocol is nicely defined, >>> and lots of code exists. >>> >>> Am I right in thinking that, if such an extension existed, it would >>> be relatively easy to modify Exim to support

Re: [exim] RFC 5321, 5322

Chambers, Phil wrote: > >> -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ian Eiloart Sent: >> Mon 06 October 2008 12:01 To: W B Hacker; exim users Subject: Re: >> [exim] RFC 5321, 5322 >> >> >> >

Re: [exim] RFC 5321, 5322

> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ian Eiloart > Sent: Mon 06 October 2008 12:01 > To: W B Hacker; exim users > Subject: Re: [exim] RFC 5321, 5322 > > > > --On 4 October 2008 05:12:18 +0800 W B Hack

Re: [exim] RFC 5321, 5322

Ian Eiloart wrote: > > --On 4 October 2008 05:12:18 +0800 W B Hacker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> - Too few long-standing needs have been addressed. It is close to ten >> years since Courier-MTA introduced a post-data phase extension that >> would allow a server to say WTTEF: "10 of those 1

Re: [exim] RFC 5321, 5322

--On 3 October 2008 15:30:08 -0400 Marc Sherman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jeroen van Aart wrote: >> >> "Bounces should only be sent if the receiver knows they'll be "usefully >> delivered." This is code for: Don't sent bounces when your system >> rejects spam or virus traffic, or you'll beco

Re: [exim] RFC 5321, 5322

--On 4 October 2008 05:12:18 +0800 W B Hacker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > - Too few long-standing needs have been addressed. It is close to ten > years since Courier-MTA introduced a post-data phase extension that > would allow a server to say WTTEF: "10 of those 13 will accept that > these

Re: [exim] RFC 5321, 5322

Renaud Allard wrote: > > > Marc Sherman wrote: >> Jeroen van Aart wrote: >>> "Bounces should only be sent if the receiver knows they'll be "usefully >>> delivered." This is code for: Don't sent bounces when your system >>> rejects spam or virus traffic, or you'll become an Internet pariah." >>> >

Re: [exim] RFC 5321, 5322

Marc Sherman wrote: Jeroen van Aart wrote: "Bounces should only be sent if the receiver knows they'll be "usefully delivered." This is code for: Don't sent bounces when your system rejects spam or virus traffic, or you'll become an Internet pariah." That sounds nice in theory. But how can you

Re: [exim] RFC 5321, 5322

Jeroen van Aart wrote: > > "Bounces should only be sent if the receiver knows they'll be "usefully > delivered." This is code for: Don't sent bounces when your system > rejects spam or virus traffic, or you'll become an Internet pariah." > > That sounds nice in theory. But how can you ever in a

Re: [exim] RFC 5321, 5322

> That sounds nice in theory. But how can you ever in a sane manner > determine with reasonable certainty a bounce will be usefully > delivered? Simple, just tag all outgoing emails with one of those neat footers saying that "This bounce is intended to be useful..." and you should be free and clea

Re: [exim] RFC 5321, 5322

Martin.Hepworth wrote: > > Nice write up at... > > http://blog.mailchannels.com/2008/10/update-to-email-standards.html Quoting writer's interpretation: "Bounces should only be sent if the receiver knows they'll be "usefully delivered." This is code for: Don't sent bounces when your system rej

Re: [exim] RFC 5321, 5322

Same here ... I've got a script that goes round and adds a ctrl/lf on the end of these messages in the queue. Its not just topica its a fair few mailman style list managers Chris > Yes, MS Exchange only accepts CRLF and doesn't recognize bare LF (while exim accepts both). If you issue LF and

Re: [exim] RFC 5321, 5322

On Fri, 3 Oct 2008, Renaud Allard wrote: > > Yesterday I noticed that the body of these mails does not terminate with > > CRLF, there is no line termination at all, and I'm guessing that is the > > issue. > > > > Has anyone else observed this? > > > > Yes, MS Exchange only accepts CRLF and does

Re: [exim] RFC 5321, 5322

Jethro R Binks wrote: On a perhaps related note (but without wishing to detract from the above discussion), for many months I have been bugged by a problem where I certain messages received by Exim cannot be forwarded to local MS Exchange servers (2003, and maybe 2007 too). Exim notes the

Re: [exim] RFC 5321, 5322

On Fri, 3 Oct 2008, Renaud Allard wrote: > I was just browsing RFC 5321 (not finished reading yet) > It seems it implies that exim is not RFC 5321 compliant, for example: > " >Lines consist of zero or more data characters terminated by the >sequence ASCII character "CR" (hex value 0D) foll

Re: [exim] RFC 5321, 5322

ECTED] On Behalf Of Renaud Allard > Sent: 03 October 2008 13:54 > To: Ian Eiloart > Cc: exim-users@exim.org > Subject: Re: [exim] RFC 5321, 5322 > > > > Ian Eiloart wrote: > > Hi, > > > > People on this list will be interested to know that RFCs > 282

Re: [exim] RFC 5321, 5322

Ian Eiloart wrote: Hi, People on this list will be interested to know that RFCs 2821 and 2822 (and some other related RFCs) have been deprecated by the release yesterday of RFCs 5321 (SMTP) and 5322 (Internet Message Format) respectively. I was just browsing RFC 5321 (not finished readin

[exim] RFC 5321, 5322

Hi, People on this list will be interested to know that RFCs 2821 and 2822 (and some other related RFCs) have been deprecated by the release yesterday of RFCs 5321 (SMTP) and 5322 (Internet Message Format) respectively. Abstract This document is a speci