> Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 00:55:44 -0500
> From: victor.ducho...@morganstanley.com
> To: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Subject: Re: Invalid response code: 503 5.7.0 Error: access denied
>
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 03:27:20PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > I had a similar patch that I was going to post 30 mins ago when
> > someone walked into my room:
>
> OK, we are on the same page then.
>
> > > On a somewhat related note, should the documentation explicitly warn that
> > > with smtpd_delay_reject=no, clients can keep going even when rejected by
> > > helo restrictions, if "smtpd_helo_required = no"? Of course the client
> > > could just not send "helo/ehlo", and avoid the helo restrictions that way.
> > > This may not be clear to those tempted to put substantive checks in
> > > the HELO branch, without enforcing the use of "HELO".
> >
> > Um, people who put restrictions on HELO commands need
> > smtpd_helo_required=yes, regardless of smtpd_delay_reject settings.
>
> Yes, my point was that they may not think this through, and
> perhaps we should more explicitly explain this in the docs for
> smtpd_helo_restrictions, smtpd_delay_reject and in SMTP_ACCESS_README.
>
> --
> Viktor.
I've made the change to my local code base. Will this change make it into a
2.7.x release or 2.8?
