25 Aug
2012
25 Aug
'12
11:25 a.m.
On 24.8.2012, at 14.18, Matthew Powell wrote:
On 2012-08-24, at 7.01, Jerry jerry@seibercom.net wrote:
I would personally recommend supporting it. If history teaches us anything, it is that sooner or later, and usually sooner, someone will require that block. Being prepared for it in advance would seem like the prudent thing to do.
I wonder whether it would be better to make the exclusion list configurable.
The reason for this default exclusion list is exactly to avoid behaving badly in unconfigured systems. Normally people should be using Dovecot proxies and login_trusted_networks setting configured to avoid the problem entirely.