RE: James FastFail thoughts

2005-06-12 Thread Anagha Mudigonda
Noel, I like the design you proposed for the protocol handler framework so that Fast fail is a mere extension to it. Moreover the rest of protocols can be rewritten around the new framework. Here is my design proposal very much on the lines on yours and Danny's. Please review and let me know your

RE: James FastFail thoughts

2005-06-10 Thread Noel J. Bergman
Anagha Mudigonda wrote: > If MAIL FROM validation passed SPF then no need to Validate RCPT TO > If MAIL FROM, RCPT TO Passed then no need to validate DATA Well, I'm not so sure about those rules, but that's separate from how one might do them. > We not only need session state but some kinda rule

James FastFail thoughts

2005-06-10 Thread Anagha Mudigonda
Hi, I have been actively following the Fast fail design discussions. I was wondering it may be necessary to configure rule as the following: If MAIL FROM validation passed SPF then no need to Validate RCPT TO If MAIL FROM, RCPT TO Passed then no need to validate DATA We not only need session sta