Prev: Unknown Recipient Domain
Next: LDAP based auto reply in virtual hosting environment
From: LuKreme on 31 Jan 2010 15:45
On 31-Jan-2010, at 12:21, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> Server implementations SHOULD support both VRFY and EXPN. For
> security reasons, implementations MAY provide local installations a
> way to disable either or both of these commands through configuration
> options or the equivalent.

And SHOULD is well-defined in RFC 2119

SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
carefully weighed before choosing a different course.

--
The real world was far too real to leave neat little hints. It was full of too many things. It wasn't by eliminating the impossible that you got at the truth, however improbable; it was by the much harder process of eliminating the possibilities. --Feet of Clay

From: Stan Hoeppner on 31 Jan 2010 19:20
Jacqui Caren-home put forth on 1/31/2010 12:47 PM:

> I recommend joining the spam-l list and joining the discussion there.

I recommend against this. The topic is dead there now. One poster there
questioned why Wietse enabled it by default. I merely asked here so I could
post an official answer to spam-l. In hind sight, maybe I should have emailed
Wietse directly. My apologies if I've started a useless debate here. This
topic has been beaten to death in many fora over the years. No need to rehash
it again really.

--
Stan

First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2
Prev: Unknown Recipient Domain
Next: LDAP based auto reply in virtual hosting environment