Joel Rees <joel.r...@gmail.com> writes: > (But in this case, absolutely requiring a response would be building a > DOS and potential privacy vulnerability into the message > infrastructure. The RFCs really should be stored with a summary of > relevant comments.)
Could you explain how an MTA would create a privacy vulnerability or expose itself to DOS attacks by not accepting messages? For example, my MTA does not accept messages that have an empty Subject: header. How does that expose my privacy or allow for DOS attacks? -- Again we must be afraid of speaking of daemons for fear that daemons might swallow us. Finally, this fear has become reasonable. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/878ukkvmtw.fsf...@yun.yagibdah.de
