Hi All,
Just to say thank you to everyone who replied to this: The replies
have been very helpful and I feel have clarified the issues -
it seems that 'Fixing' bare LF issues is likely to be more productive
(i.e. use fixcr or fixcrio) than messing around with Solaris patches.
And that's the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 25 Jul 00, at 9:49, Andrew Richards wrote:
For what it's worth, a reminder of using fixcr - aimed primarily at
archive users who come across this message a month/year etc. ahead and
want to see if this might fix similar issues for them...
-
- 3. The sending IP is using a broken mailer that's
generating bare LFs, and this mailer regards the
resulting temporary error code generated by qmail
as 'Please try again straightaway'.
I'd be particularly interested to know if anyone has come
across the
"James Blondin" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The question I have is, and
excuse my ignorance if it's something silly: why not just accept the bare
linefeeds? From what I can understand in RFC822, there's nothing wrong
with bare linefeeds in the body of the messages as long as the headers
have all
The 'problem' as it relates to RFCs, not to Qmail's implementation, is probably
the original question.
Dave Sill wrote:
"James Blondin" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The question I have is, and
excuse my ignorance if it's something silly: why not just accept the bare
linefeeds? From what I can
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The 'problem' as it relates to RFCs, not to Qmail's implementation,
is probably the original question.
Probably? If you don't know, why bother guessing? I answered the
question I thought was asked. If the person who asked the question
isn't satisfied with that answer,
Dave Sill wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The 'problem' as it relates to RFCs, not to Qmail's implementation,
is probably the original question.
Probably? If you don't know, why bother guessing? I answered the
question I thought was asked. If the person who asked the question
isn't
"James Blondin" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The answer you gave was useful, Dave, but although I didn't realize it at
first, my question is really relating to the RFCs more than to qmail's
implementation. It's just that qmail's implementation of it led me to
asking the question.
In that case,
Dave Sill wrote:
In that case, qmail is not strictly RFC822 compliant in rejecting
messages with bare linefeeds. Apparently Dan felt that the effort
necessary to allow messages to contain LF's was more trouble than it
was worth--especially considered that 822bis prohibits bare LF's.
This
"James Blondin" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dave Sill wrote:
In that case, qmail is not strictly RFC822 compliant in rejecting
messages with bare linefeeds. Apparently Dan felt that the effort
necessary to allow messages to contain LF's was more trouble than it
was worth--especially considered
Dave Sill wrote:
"James Blondin" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dave Sill wrote:
In that case, qmail is not strictly RFC822 compliant in rejecting
messages with bare linefeeds. Apparently Dan felt that the effort
necessary to allow messages to contain LF's was more trouble than it
was
Hi All,
Going through the archives to research a problem I've
"seen with my own eyes", I'd appreciate any feedback,
war stories, comments from readers of this list:
I'm working with a company that sometimes sees it's
qmail servers take a huge hit, with very many qmail-smtpd
and qmail-queue
- 3. The sending IP is using a broken mailer that's
generating bare LFs, and this mailer regards the
resulting temporary error code generated by qmail
as 'Please try again straightaway'.
I'd be particularly interested to know if anyone has come
across the 3rd
13 matches
Mail list logo
