[Full-disclosure] What makes Yahoo! a good merger candidate?

[Harry Hoffman]

Sadly, it seems that more and more mail servers are RFC-apathetic :-(

And the admins even more so... It almost seems the larger the company 
the less likely to follow RFCs (IME).

There there's people like spamcop who think that RFCs are ok for some 
things but not for others :-(

</sigh>

--Harry

Paul Schmehl wrote:
> --On Wednesday, February 06, 2008 12:25:19 -0500 Harry Hoffman 
> <hhoffman at ip-solutions.net> wrote:
> 
>> You just need to take it a step further :-)
>>
>> ...
>> rcpt to: <nosuchuser12323123123123132124432342 at yahoo.com>
>> 250 recipient <nosuchuser12323123123123132124432342 at yahoo.com> ok
>> data
>> 354 go ahead
>> Testing
>> .
>>
>> 554 delivery error: dd This user doesn't have a yahoo.com account
>> (nosuchuser12323123123123132124432342 at yahoo.com) [0] -
>> mta367.mail.mud.yahoo.com
>> 421 Service not available, closing transmission channel.
>> Connection closed by foreign host.
>>
>>
>> Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote:
>>> On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 10:44:10 CST, Paul Schmehl said:
>>>
>>>> RCPT TO: <abuse at yahoo.com>
>>>> 250 recipient <abuse at yahoo.com> ok
>>> % telnet f.mx.mail.yahoo.com 25
>>> ...
>>> rcpt to: <ctl-alt-cokebottle at yahoo.com>
>>> 250 recipient <ctl-alt-cokebottle at yahoo.com> ok
>>>
>>> Yee. Hah.  They 250 for a probably-nonexistent account (unless that
>>> one actually *does* exist? :)
>>>
> 
> They're also the first mail server I've ever connected to that won't accept 
> user at domain.tld and insists on <user at domain.tld> instead.  So, I'm not 
> surprised to find that they 250 everything you type in.
> 
> I guess RFCs are even more meaningless now than they always have been.   :-(
> 
> BTW, privately I was informed that the *real* address is security at yahoo-inc.com.
> 
> Who knew.
>