james-server-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Peter M. Goldstein" <peter_m_goldst...@yahoo.com>
Subject RE: SMTP RFCs
Date Wed, 07 Aug 2002 07:06:31 GMT

Noel,


> More seriously, JAMES is in violation of Section 7.7:
> 
> "Some sites have decided to limit the use of the relay function
> to known or identifiable sources, and implementations SHOULD
> provide the capability to perform this type of filtering.  When mail
> is rejected for these or other policy reasons, a 550 code SHOULD be
> used in response to EHLO, MAIL, or RCPT as appropriate."
> 
> In other words, it is a violation of section 7.7 to accept e-mail, and
> then
> discard SPAM later.  Compliance with that section requires
architectural
> change.  Filtering will have to be done in-line with the handler,
while it
> is still possible to return a response to the SMTP client.

Maybe I'm reading this a little differently than you, but I only see
"SHOULD"s here.  It doesn't say "MUST".  So I don't agree that
compliance with the RFC necessarily requires that kind of architectural
rewrite.  As I see it we can just eat spam and still be in compliance in
the most lenient sense.  Your thoughts?

--Peter



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:james-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:james-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>


Mime
View raw message