RE: What to do about these barelinefeeds?

2000-10-29 Thread Andrew Richards
: Hubbard, David[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 27 October 2000 10:35 To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject:RE: What to do about these barelinefeeds? Thanks Adam, that is exactly what I needed to know. I'm assuming that all I need to do is edit qmail-smtpd.c and change t

Re: What to do about these barelinefeeds?

2000-10-27 Thread Markus Stumpf
On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 08:29:42PM -0400, Hubbard, David wrote: > 1) Does anyone have a list of commonly used mail > servers that violate this? I've seen mainly Lotus, MS, Novell and even Netscape Mailserver running on Solaris producing this kind of problems. >From my experience most of the fail

RE: What to do about these barelinefeeds?

2000-10-27 Thread Hubbard, David
, October 27, 2000 12:19 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: Re: What to do about these barelinefeeds? On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 11:31:01PM -0400, Hubbard, David wrote: > Thanks, I hadn't seen that link before. I'm sorry, I meant > that the 256 was the status code I see

RE: What to do about these barelinefeeds?

2000-10-27 Thread Frank Tegtmeyer
> but it seems that you'd never want the 451 in this case > because obviously it will be the same mailer that will > retry each time and it will continue to be broken for each > try... If you don't like this behaviour block him at the firewall or via tcpserver. At least for a while. If you wan

Re: What to do about these barelinefeeds?

2000-10-26 Thread Adam McKenna
On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 11:31:01PM -0400, Hubbard, David wrote: > Thanks, I hadn't seen that link before. I'm sorry, I meant > that the 256 was the status code I see in my smtpd log. > But, in searching the archives, I saw reference to people > saying the bare LF generates a 451 and not a 553. I

Re: What to do about these barelinefeeds?

2000-10-26 Thread Andy Bradford
Thus said "Hubbard, David" on Thu, 26 Oct 2000 23:31:01 EDT: > verify that since I don't have a mailer to try it with > but it seems that you'd never want the 451 in this case > because obviously it will be the same mailer that will > retry each time and it will continue to be broken for each > t

RE: What to do about these barelinefeeds?

2000-10-26 Thread Hubbard, David
2000 8:34 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: Re: What to do about these barelinefeeds? qmail doesn't return an error code of 256 for the bare lf problem, it returns 553. > 2) The important question now is, what kind of error > does the user get when their mail server finally &g

Re: What to do about these barelinefeeds?

2000-10-26 Thread Chris Johnson
On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 08:33:43PM -0400, Adam McKenna wrote: > On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 08:29:42PM -0400, Hubbard, David wrote: > > Well first off, can someone explain to me the reasoning > > behind the bare linefeed restriction? I hope it is an actual > > standard that this restriction is trying

Re: What to do about these barelinefeeds?

2000-10-26 Thread Adam McKenna
On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 08:29:42PM -0400, Hubbard, David wrote: > Well first off, can someone explain to me the reasoning > behind the bare linefeed restriction? I hope it is an actual > standard that this restriction is trying to make other MTA's > adhere to. > > So anyway, 2 questions: > > 1)

What to do about these barelinefeeds?

2000-10-26 Thread Hubbard, David
Well first off, can someone explain to me the reasoning behind the bare linefeed restriction? I hope it is an actual standard that this restriction is trying to make other MTA's adhere to. So anyway, 2 questions: 1) Does anyone have a list of commonly used mail servers that violate this? Pers