[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