nanog mailing list archives
Re: AOL holes again.
From: Peter van Dijk <peter () dataloss nl>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 21:40:02 +0100
On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 01:36:02PM -0500, ken harris. wrote:
If the MSNBC article is anywhere near correct (yeah, a big assumption) then what AOL was doing was black-holing any "high-volume" source. While that is a noble goal, the fact that any mailing list would fall into that category is pretty lame.http://members.aol.com/adamkb/aol/mailfaq/dropped-mail.html#lists
This basically means AOL is violating the very spirit of SMTP - you say '250 message accepted', and you deliver it to all recipients you specified acceptance for, or produce bounces. Greetz, Peter.
Current thread:
- AOL holes again. Alan Clegg (Mar 20)
- Re: AOL holes again. Eric A. Hall (Mar 20)
- Re: AOL holes again. Derek J. Balling (Mar 20)
- Re: AOL holes again. Alan Clegg (Mar 20)
- Re: AOL holes again. ken harris. (Mar 20)
- Re: AOL holes again. Peter van Dijk (Mar 20)
- Re: AOL holes again. M. David Leonard (Mar 20)
- Re: AOL holes again. Steve Sobol (Mar 20)
- Re: AOL holes again. Eric A. Hall (Mar 20)
- Re: AOL holes again. Shawn McMahon (Mar 20)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: AOL holes again. Richard Welty (Mar 20)
- RE: AOL holes again. Roeland Meyer (Mar 20)
- RE: AOL holes again. M. David Leonard (Mar 20)
- Re: AOL holes again. Shawn McMahon (Mar 20)
- Re: AOL holes again. Valdis . Kletnieks (Mar 20)
- Re: AOL holes again. Shawn McMahon (Mar 20)
- Re: AOL holes again. Dan Hollis (Mar 20)
- RE: AOL holes again. M. David Leonard (Mar 20)