[Mimedefang] Problem solved?

Ben Kamen bkamen at benjammin.net
Thu Feb 15 14:02:51 EST 2007



Les Mikesell wrote:
> Ben Kamen wrote:
> 
>>> Client SMTP implementations that employ pipelining MUST check ALL
>>>    statuses associated with each command in a group. For example, if
>>>    none of the RCPT TO recipient addresses were accepted the client must
>>>    then check the response to the DATA command -- the client cannot
>>>    assume that the DATA command will be rejected just because none of
>>>    the RCPT TO commands worked.
>>
>> So if I understand this right,
>>
>> Their server might be cruising along, but it's not waiting long enough 
>> for the response to continue.
> 
> That's a matter of perspective... It is just as valid to say the 
> response didn't happen soon enough.

I agree with you. 

Although Dave's pointing me out the "recommended timeouts" 
tells me there's a suggested setting and just like the aviation industry,
when you exceed the manufacturer's recommendations for things like 
Vne (Velocity Never Exceed) - you become a test pilot.

I could adjust my timeouts below the recommended... but then I become an
experiemental server. I really shouldn't blame anyone else for problems
I start having.

>> Nice. So in PIPELINING mode, they are just sloppy... if they aren't 
>> really using pipelining, they are RFC2821 non-compliant.
> 
> Whether they use PIPELINING or not has to depend on your EHLO response.

I'm definitely tossing out the PIPELINING... I'll have to play with turning it
off... I wonder what their servers will do then.

This should be interesting. ;)

Thanks for everyone's help...

 -Ben


-- 
Ben Kamen
=============================================================================
Email: bkamen AT benjammin DOT net              Web: http://www.benjammin.net

There is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress.
		-- Mark Twain



More information about the MIMEDefang mailing list