On Thu, 2008-03-27 at 05:54 -0700, Craig White wrote: > You're 'not sure that a server really *has* to resend' ? > > So even though you are unfamiliar with the RFC's that cover the topic, > you are entirely comfortable with your administrative decisions. John beat me to the punchline with his reply. I *have* previously read scads of mail RFCs, looking into this. I don't even try to remember all details of all specifications, nobody could. I go back and search through technical documents if I really need that level of detail. But I do remember reading that can't expect a resend, absolutely. And on that point, it's enough for me to be able to remember that very important detail, rather than chapter and verse of where it's outlined. I'm also well aware that there's a great many services which aren't RFC compliant. Message resending's another of those "it'd be nice, but..." situations. > The point I was making at the end is that you are excessively > paranoid, Pardon? You're the one heavily filtering mail... > admittedly not informed as to the basis of your opinion and stand on > principles that eschew proven technologies merely out of principle. The only proven facts regarding greylisting is that some mail will be lost, and some spam may be avoided. > I'm sure your clients are buried in client side spam filtering > methodology because of your principles. You assume too much... -- (This computer runs FC7, my others run FC4, FC5 & FC6, in case that's important to the thread.) Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists.
