Brian <a...@cityscape.co.uk> writes: > On Tue 21 Oct 2014 at 22:54:19 +0200, lee wrote: > >> Brian <a...@cityscape.co.uk> writes: >> >> >> On Sun 19 Oct 2014 at 01:19:51 +0200, lee wrote: >> >> >> >> At least they are supporting others in breaking RFCs, and I wonder how >> >> that could not be against their own interests. In any case, it >> >> classifies them as (at least potentially very) unreliable. >> > >> > This is first time I've come across the concept of aiding and abetting >> > the breaking of RFCs. :) >> >> They're supporting it by accepting and delivering or relaying messages >> from MTAs (or perhaps MUAs) that don't comply to RFCs. > > An RFC may have something to say about the expectations of what is > accepted. I cannot think of one which specifies what you shouldn't > accept. An example of the later would be useful.
Yes --- perhaps you can send them a comment? -- 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/87r3xyvdai....@yun.yagibdah.de
