| To: | qmail@list.cr.yp.to |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Qmail is clearly out of compliance with RFC282. |
| From: | Lars Hansson <lars@unet.net.ph> |
| Date: | Tue, 28 Nov 2006 10:42:32 +0800 |
| Delivered-to: | sp-com-lists@consult.net |
| Delivered-to: | gmail-qmail@securepoint.com |
| Delivered-to: | sp.com.list@gmail.com |
| Delivered-to: | mailing list qmail@list.cr.yp.to |
| In-reply-to: | <456B69D4.3080005@perkel.com> |
| Mailing-list: | contact qmail-help@list.cr.yp.to; run by ezmlm |
| References: | <45676987.2050808@perkel.com> <456B5418.10708@blackpacket.net> <456B69D4.3080005@perkel.com> |
| User-agent: | KMail/1.9.5 |
On Tuesday 28 November 2006 06:42, Marc Perkel wrote: > To provide reliable mail transmission, the SMTP client MUST be able > to try (and retry) each of the relevant addresses in this list in > order, until a delivery attempt succeeds. > > > Seems clear to me. Unless you want to argue what MUST means. It only says it has to be able to do it, it doesnt say it *has* to do it. > Clearly it is saying that in any case that at least 2 mx records must > best tested. For some reason you are ignoring the plain language of the > RFC. It could have been written more precisely but you really have to > stretch to not get what it is clearly saying. Like how it is precise about not issuing 4xx replies on connection? > Qmail is out of compliance with RFC282. What's out of compliance is your 4xx reply on connection and there's nothing unclear about that. --- Lars Hansson |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: multilog s16777215 limit, John Simpson |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: problem with CDB_File in mkvalidrcptto, Eric d'Alibut |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Qmail is clearly out of compliance with RFC2821, Uncle George |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Advanced tricks I use to get rid of spam using MX 4xx, Russ Nelson |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |