On Jan 4, 2008 6:02 PM, Rick Astley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I know large mostly unused pools of client IP's make it more difficult to
> use traditional worm propagation methods in IPv6[1], but if customers move
> from IPv4 "firewalls" to IPv6 "routers", we still lose an important layer of
>
Folks,
Let's bring this one to closure. The authors question is answered and
this is backing itself into an endless thread with arguments better
suited for the IETF vs. NANOG.
Best Regards,
Martin Hannigan
NANOG Mailing List Committee
On Jan 4, 2008 1:02 PM, Alexander Harrowell <[EMAIL PRO
Alexander Harrowell wrote:
Becausewe wouldn't have e-mail? Consider the pain of getting
worldwide interoperability for a "notmail" system that insisted on
strict validation...
The SMTP ship has already sailed, so trying to change the behavior of
email would be difficult.
I do, howeve
On Jan 4, 2008 5:52 PM, Andrew Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I completely agree. If it weren't for that philosophy, we wouldn't
> have an email problem at all.
>
> A
>
Becausewe wouldn't have e-mail? Consider the pain of getting worldwide
interoperability for a "notmail" system tha
On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 10:27:47AM -0600, Joe Greco wrote:
> That particular philosophy has done great wonders for e-mail and the spam
> problem,
I completely agree. If it weren't for that philosophy, we wouldn't
have an email problem at all.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan 204-
On Jan 4, 2008 11:27 AM, Joe Greco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Be liberal in what you accept, and
>
> That particular philosophy has done great wonders for e-mail and the spam
> problem
Joe,
I've heard similarly unsubstantiated versions of this claim over and
over. The fact i
On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 07:51:15AM -0800, Seth Mattinen wrote:
> Our mail servers reject connections that don't follow the RFC. Am I wrong
> to do this?
Nope. His software is either misconfigured or broken.
I'm aware of the be-liberal-in-what-you-accept philosophy (and followed
it for many ye
> his arguments is "even hotmail does not keep
> up the standards" and if we ignore them as
It sounds like he's admitting that the RFC is correct, but since Hotmail
will accept "malformed" messages, so should everyone else. He basically
wants you to adjust your server to be more lax so he doesn'
On Jan 4, 2008 10:51 AM, Seth Mattinen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Our mail servers reject connections that don't follow the RFC. Am I
> wrong to do this?
Seth,
RFC 1122 (Requirements for Internet Hosts - Communication Layers)
section 1.2.2 (Robustness Principle):
"Be liberal i
I'm having a bit of an argument with a customer over the command syntax
in RFC 2821 that shows command arguments for MAIL/RCPT commands in
brackets, i.e.:
Path = "<" [ A-d-l ":" ] Mailbox ">"
Mailbox = Local-part "@" Domain
Our mail servers reject connections that don't follow the RFC. Am I
On Jan 4, 2008 2:37 AM, John L Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Marty,
>
> Its (IPal) main deployment has been with Service Providers and Government
> agencies doing v6 deployment since it support multiple vendors DNS and DHCP
> servers and has XML integration with OSS and NMS systems. As a
11 matches
Mail list logo
