Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Custom error messages

Expand Messages
  • Bill Cole
    ... Clearly we have a language barrier that probably won t be overcome. Even with almost a decade working for US divisions of Daimler, VW, and DT my German is
    Message 1 of 7 , Jan 28, 2012
      On 28 Jan 2012, at 9:45, Reindl Harald wrote:

      > Am 28.01.2012 07:00, schrieb Bill Cole:
      >>> to say it not polite: it is idiotic to remove "User unknown"
      >>
      >> That's debatable. However, it is explicitly allowed by RFC5321 and
      >> its ancestors.
      >
      > not all things which are allowed are smart
      > the RFC allows you even a open-relay
      > so should we help anybody setup one?
      >
      > it is only debatable because you have seen not enough of
      > the real world and thinking only the RFC is saving your
      > life and even if you make a big mistake it is OK as long
      > it is in the RFC
      >
      > most spam-filters are not there but reality

      Clearly we have a language barrier that probably won't be overcome. Even
      with almost a decade working for US divisions of Daimler, VW, and DT my
      German is worse than your English and it is obvious that I failed to
      communicate my point. Maybe I can make it more simply:

      I have used mail log analysis tools of my own designs for 6 different
      MTA's over the past 16 years for mail environments as active as millions
      of SMTP sessions per day. In my real world experience I have learned
      directly that there's no marginal value to be gained from programmatic
      interpretation or analysis of the text part of SMTP replies.

      You should also be aware of the fact that RFC's are not written in
      isolation from the real world. The revisions from 821 to 2821 to 5321
      were distilled from the real world experiences of people running mail
      servers, and it is instructive to look at what changed between them and
      what did not.

      >> See http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5321#section-4.2
      >>
      >>> as example we are doing fully automated bounce-managment based on
      >>> /var/log/maillog and remove adresses from ALL tables of all
      >>> customers
      >>> which contains "newsletter" in the table-name and having a field
      >>> "email"
      >>
      >> If you relied on the text in that way in an SMTP client
      >> it would violate a "MUST" statement in RFC5321.
      >
      > wtf - who said that i rely only on the text?

      No one said that, implied that, or inferred that. Please find someone
      who is adequately fluent in both English and German to explain the
      admonitions in the middle of page 47 of RFC5321 in light of the special
      definitions of RFC2119. I think that is beyond my skills.

      As this thread has moved away from topicality here and is burdened by
      linguistic difficulty, I am done with it.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.