Re: NOOP and Spamd

2007-03-20 Thread Stuart Henderson
On 2007/03/19 20:39, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote: > You will also find the command sequence RSET+NOOP used to delimit > transactions when an SMTP client reuses an established SMTP session > to send multiple messages. That (reusing an established session) won't happen whilst talking to spamd.

Re: NOOP and Spamd

2007-03-19 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg
On Mar 19, 2007, at 7:17 PM, Timothy A. Napthali wrote: The only problem I can foresee is that I remember reading somewhere that some MTAs use NOOP as a kind of keep-alive at times. You will also find the command sequence RSET+NOOP used to delimit transactions when an SMTP client reuses an

Re: NOOP and Spamd

2007-03-19 Thread Timothy A. Napthali
PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Anderson Sent: Tuesday, 20 March 2007 6:03 AM Cc: OpenBSD Misc Subject: Re: NOOP and Spamd ** Reply to message from Bob Beck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Mon, 19 Mar 2007 09:40:52 -0600 >* Sid Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2

Re: NOOP and Spamd

2007-03-19 Thread Dave Anderson
** Reply to message from Bob Beck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Mon, 19 Mar 2007 09:40:52 -0600 >* Sid Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-03-19 03:25]: > >> > Regardless, if NOOP is in the SMTP standard, and spamd does not handle >> > it correctly, that is a bug that needs to be fixed. > > Bullshit.

Re: NOOP and Spamd

2007-03-19 Thread Bob Beck
* Sid Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-03-19 03:25]: > > Regardless, if NOOP is in the SMTP standard, and spamd does not handle > > it correctly, that is a bug that needs to be fixed. Bullshit. that's not a good enough reason - spamd does not implement all of smtp, and never will. saying

Re: NOOP and Spamd

2007-03-19 Thread Sid Carter
"Darren Spruell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 3/18/07, Sid Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> greylisting. On further investigation, we found out that the MS Mail >> servers send a NOOP before they start sending other SMTP commands and >> spamd returns a 451 even for a NOOP causing the SMTP c

Re: NOOP and Spamd

2007-03-19 Thread Sid Carter
"Shawn K. Quinn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 14:04 +0800, Lars Hansson wrote: >> He probably mean MS Mail, an ancient Microsoft mail system >> that no sane person should be running in 2007. > > Regardless, if NOOP is in the SMTP standard, and spamd does not handle > it corr

Re: NOOP and Spamd

2007-03-18 Thread Shawn K. Quinn
On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 14:04 +0800, Lars Hansson wrote: > He probably mean MS Mail, an ancient Microsoft mail system > that no sane person should be running in 2007. Regardless, if NOOP is in the SMTP standard, and spamd does not handle it correctly, that is a bug that needs to be fixed. -- Shawn

Re: NOOP and Spamd

2007-03-18 Thread Lars Hansson
Darren Spruell wrote: On 3/18/07, Sid Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Might be useful if you would include details, and lots of them, on a subject like this. "MS Mail Servers" is generic and meaningless; He probably mean MS Mail, an ancient Microsoft mail system that no sane person should be

Re: NOOP and Spamd

2007-03-18 Thread Darren Spruell
On 3/18/07, Sid Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi, I am currently running OpenBSD 4.0 as a greylisting server. We have found that many Microsoft Mail Servers/Mail Marshal cannot get past the greylisting. On further investigation, we found out that the MS Mail servers send a NOOP before they s

NOOP and Spamd

2007-03-18 Thread Sid Carter
Hi, I am currently running OpenBSD 4.0 as a greylisting server. We have found that many Microsoft Mail Servers/Mail Marshal cannot get past the greylisting. On further investigation, we found out that the MS Mail servers send a NOOP before they start sending other SMTP commands and spamd returns a