On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, Sam Trenholme wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, Faried Nawaz wrote:
>
> > With QMTP, you get
> >
> > C: > tying up the connection for 30 seconds and wasting bandwidth>
> > S: 7:Dgo away,
>
> This also wastes the Spammer's time and bandwidth.
If you really want to make spamm
On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, Faried Nawaz wrote:
> With QMTP, you get
>
> C: tying up the connection for 30 seconds and wasting bandwidth>
> S: 7:Dgo away,
This also wastes the Spammer's time and bandwidth.
- Sam
Vincent Schonau wrote:
I think you mean Dan's implementation is 'less powerful'; it has nothing to
do with the protocol.
With SMTP, you get
S: 220 hi, it's me!
C: mail from: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
S: 551 go away
With QMTP, you get
C:
S: 7:Dgo away,
Has anyone seen spam enter their net
Faried Nawaz writes:
> QMTP may be faster than SMTP for sending mail, but it seems less
> powerful in our spam-happy Internet era.
I think you mean Dan's implementation is 'less powerful'; it has nothing to
do with the protocol.
Has anyone seen spam enter their network via qmail-qmtpd?
Vi
QMTP may be faster than SMTP for sending mail, but it seems less powerful in
our spam-happy Internet era. How would one go about rejecting incoming QMTP
mail? The protocol suggests that there is no way of writing some equivalent
of rblsmtpd. The shipped qmail-qmtpd.c in qmail 1.03 doesn't even
On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 03:08:32AM +0459, Faried Nawaz wrote:
>
> QMTP may be faster than SMTP for sending mail, but it seems less powerful in
> our spam-happy Internet era. How would one go about rejecting incoming QMTP
> mail? The protocol suggests that there is no way of writing some equival
