In <20090318180433.1722275a.cele...@gmail.com>, Celejar wrote: >On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 11:07:47 -0500 >"Boyd Stephen Smith Jr." <b...@iguanasuicide.net> wrote: >> In <49c0b85a.6020...@smiffytech.com>, Matthew Smith wrote: >> >Quoth Bob Cox at 2009-03-18 18:39... >> >> The question is whether you should be rejecting email from any user >> >> @act.gov.au just because act.gov.au does not resolve. >> >Tempting though it is, rejecting mail on the basis of RFC-non >> > compliance is NOT a good move. >> <div class="militant"> >> BS. Grow a spine, stand up for the standards, and kick non-compliant >> mail to the curb. If enough people do it, others will follow. >> </div> >But don't forget Postel's Robustness Principle: > >TCP implementations will follow a general principle of robustness: be >conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from >others."
I'll follow it as soon as they do. :P It should also be noted that being too liberal in what you accept from others has caused security issues in the past. (Ping of Death or XMas-tree packets anyone?) -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. b...@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
