The test was for the rbl DSN rfc clueless, they were attempting to test
whether we accepted mail with an empty mail from, ie bounces, which of
course we do... but their test is clueless.
Brandon
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 10:11 AM, wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 05:59:36 +, Phil Pennock said:
>
On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 05:59:36 +, Phil Pennock said:
> I believe Brandon's point is that this is a probe _of_ Gmail, not _by_
> Gmail, and the service purporting to be testing RFC conformance is
> instead doing a very old-style message with no headers at all.
Right. The test sends something th
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 05:59:36AM +, Phil Pennock wrote:
> On 2017-02-15 at 00:24 -0500, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> > So your post un-wordraps into:
>
> > DATA
> > 354 Go ahead d7si5125389wjc.145 - gsmtp
> > Testing. .
> > 550-5.7.1 [2001:4830:11aa:106:c23f:d5ff:fe67:5ce1 11] Our system
On 2017-02-15 at 00:24 -0500, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> So your post un-wordraps into:
> DATA
> 354 Go ahead d7si5125389wjc.145 - gsmtp
> Testing. .
> 550-5.7.1 [2001:4830:11aa:106:c23f:d5ff:fe67:5ce1 11] Our system has 550-5.7.1
> detected that this message is not RFC 5322 compliant. To
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 18:04:02 -0800, Brandon Long via mailop said:
So your post un-wordraps into:
MAIL FROM:<>
250 2.1.0 OK d7si5125389wjc.145 - gsmtp
RCPT TO:
250 2.1.5 OK d7si5125389wjc.145 - gsmtp
DATA
354 Go ahead d7si5125389wjc.145 - gsmtp
Testing. .
550-5.7.1 [2001:4830:11aa:106:c23f:d5ff:fe
About 1.5y ok, we tried to start enforcing strict correctness for the
HELO/EHLO argument. For whatever reason, we'd been very lenient before, to
the point where I think we would accept an "empty" argument (ie, just a
space after HELO), iirc. The main reason we did this was we were getting
increas
On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 01:06:49PM -0500, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> And where do you announce it where all the mail system administrators who
> don't read the *current* BCPs will see it and act on it?
I got nothin'. Seriously, I thought about this for a while, and every idea
that I have ab
t;
Aan: mailop@mailop.org
Verzonden: Maandag 13 februari 2017 18:49:01
Onderwerp: Re: [mailop] Enforcement of RFCs [was: GoDaddy Email admins' in the
house?]
On 17-02-12 04:52 AM, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 12:33:47PM -0800, Michael Peddemors wrote:
>> More and
On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 3:40 PM, Ted Cabeen
wrote:
> On 2/12/2017 4:52 AM, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 12:33:47PM -0800, Michael Peddemors wrote:
>>
>>> More and more, if you want to deliver email in today's environments, you
>>> have to ensure your email servers are correct
On 2/12/2017 4:52 AM, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 12:33:47PM -0800, Michael Peddemors wrote:
More and more, if you want to deliver email in today's environments, you
have to ensure your email servers are correctly configured.
I think there's considerable value in slowly enforc
On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 07:52:25 -0500, Rich Kulawiec said:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 12:33:47PM -0800, Michael Peddemors wrote:
> > More and more, if you want to deliver email in today's environments, you
> > have to ensure your email servers are correctly configured.
>
> I think there's considerable
On 17-02-12 04:52 AM, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 12:33:47PM -0800, Michael Peddemors wrote:
More and more, if you want to deliver email in today's environments, you
have to ensure your email servers are correctly configured.
I think there's considerable value in slowly enforc
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 12:33:47PM -0800, Michael Peddemors wrote:
> More and more, if you want to deliver email in today's environments, you
> have to ensure your email servers are correctly configured.
I think there's considerable value in slowly enforcing this in stepwise,
announced fashion.
I
13 matches
Mail list logo
