On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 20:22:33 +0100 Ansgar Wiechers <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2009-12-26 Stan Hoeppner wrote: > > Len Conrad put forth on 12/26/2009 3:49 PM: > >> Requiring HELO is hardly an RFC-abusive setting. I expect almost no > >> legit, nor illegit, SMTP servers send EXPN or VRFY before helo, > > > > I'll add that just about everyone disables VRFY these days to prevent > > valid address harvesting, > > Which, of course, is utterly pointless. > > HELO example.org > MAIL FROM:<[email protected]> > RCPT TO:<[email protected]> > QUIT > wrong. there is a world of difference between; 502 5.5.1 VRFY command is disabled and 250 2.1.5 Ok or 550 5.1.1 <redacted> Recipient address rejected -- John
