: 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
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
, 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
> 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
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
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
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
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
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)
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
10 matches
Mail list logo