On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 09:43:35AM -0500, Paul Wilson wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Chris Edwards wrote:
> > Have learned alot about the RFCs from you folks - thanks! But where for
> > example, do the RFCs mention the use of spamassasin to reject pretty much
> > _anything_ we don't "like the look of". Lots of people reject lots of mail!
> The RFCs don't restrict rejecting on content. They only define what the
> commands are, what their syntax are, what order they should come in,
> etc.
You obviously didn't read them carefully enough.
SMTP defines a lot more than just what the command response bit of the
protocol looks like. For example, it tells you that you must queue mail
if you don't get a decidedly positive or negative answer. It also talks
at length about transfer of responsibility for delivering either the
mail or a bounce. It talks about what kind of timeouts are minimums,
about how your implementation should work to minimise the one situation
in SMTP where duplication of the mail can occur.
They don't deal with the spam situation in any reasonable way,
unfortunately, and this is something that the SMTP-ng IETF group appear
to want to try and do.
You're correct in some ways, that the RFCs don't restrict rejecting on
content, however, this is not quantifiably different from rejecting on
HELO/EHLO. So you're taking things a bit too literally.
MBM
--
Matthew Byng-Maddick <mbm@???> http://colondot.net/
