On Mon, 2012-05-21 at 12:22 -0700, kd6...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Mon, 5/21/12, Bernd Petrovitsch be...@petrovitsch.priv.at 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
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 exim if
On Don, 2012-05-17 at 16:02 -0700, kd6...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Thu, 5/17/12, Kris Deugau kdeu...@vianet.ca 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
--- On Mon, 5/21/12, Bernd Petrovitsch be...@petrovitsch.priv.at 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
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
--- On Mon, 5/21/12, David F. Skoll d...@roaringpenguin.com 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.
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 business
...@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, kd6...@yahoo.com wrote:
2) You still haven't said why I should accept any message which
--- On Mon, 5/21/12, George Roberts grobe...@purity.net 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
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
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
standards
--- On Thu, 5/17/12, Kris Deugau kdeu...@vianet.ca 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
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, 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's
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
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:
--- On Wed, 5/16/12, David F. Skoll d...@roaringpenguin.com 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:
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 d...@roaringpenguin.com wrote:
After gnashing my teeth at Microsoft because its dumb software ignores
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
--- On Wed, 5/16/12, George Roberts grobe...@purity.net 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
20 matches
Mail list logo
