[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Q: Any justification for failing RSET?

2005-10-31 10:00:24
On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 00:24:53 PST, SM said:

At 10:16 29-10-2005, ned+ietf-smtp(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com wrote:
(2) The intent was to limit the number of transactions per connection (to 1)
   and the implementation was seriously botched.

It's an antispam "feature".

"Hey, let's be gratuitously incompatible - that will confuse the spammers.."

Are standard for anything anymore, other than giving us a feeling of moral
superiority while we go drown the memory of the latest assault on them? :)

Attachment: pgp3QNrHcdnA7.pgp
Description: PGP signature

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>