Autor: Ian Southam Data: Para: Roger Burton West CC: exim-users Assunto: Re: [Exim] Should vacation messages go to reply_address or return_path
On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 02:58:52PM +0100 Roger Burton West wrote :
> >You cannot however simply quote RFCs repeatedly as some sort of Mantra, exim
> >is compliant, many things aren't. (Look at how many MTAs provide options to
> >deliberately introduce non-compliance to aid interoperability).
>
> And look at how well it works.
>
> If you decide that your program should have a "break the RFCs" mode in
> order to interoperate with $BROKEN_MTA, it may well work better in that
> context - but when $BROKEN_MTA's next version comes out, you'll have to
> write that code again, and there'll be random broken versions of your
Well yes, point taken but I (and probably you) work in a commercial
environment with things called customers. Now I can explain till I am blue in
the face that the reason a certain email isn't arriving is because, a braindead
mail administrator on the other side of the world cannot setup a DNS record
properly or some programmer in Palo-Alto cannot read RFCs but, in the end it
cuts no Mustard. In short they don't care. They will simply see *my* system
as broken and go somewhere else - commercial suicide.
This whole thread started with Vacation messages and this is a classic
example. This summer I have already had to sort out 4 or 5 lovely mail loops
caused by these "things" being sent out inapproprately and wrongly addressed.
We had to come up with all sorts of witchcraft to stop customers running
POP-Exchange gateways from looping our local "NewsLetter" mailing lists - I
could go on but (luckily) I won't. Also I doubt that my experiences are that
unusual.
Grief, if I had my way I would just refuse to talk to any MTA that
announces itself as running on NT .... (reminds me of the chap the other day
who has blocked Japan to stop Spam, great idea but I cannot do it).
> My experience has been that trying to meet broken software half-way is
> like sharing your food with a hungry wolf.
<grin> - and you may well be right -> Customer = hungry wolf!
