On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 07:33:28AM +0800, Corey Hickman via Postfix-users wrote:
> reject_invalid_helo_hostname
> reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname
>
> what are the differences between them? does the second one hold the
> first one already?
Neither subsumes the other, perhaps due to an implementation oversight.
The first excludes bad hostname syntax, *and* (correctly I believe,
since EHLO precedes the announcement of SMTPUTF8 support) disallows UTF8
names. The second excludes bad syntax, requires at least one "." in the
name, but doesn't disallow UTF8.
> Intuitively, you might think that reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname is
> MORE restrictive than reject_invalid_helo_hostname, but in fact
> reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname is LESS restrictive than
> reject_invalid_helo_hostname.
Differently restrictive, but likely unintentionally.
On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 09:49:47AM +0800, Ken Peng via Postfix-users wrote:
> I agree with you. for instance, 腾讯.公司 is a invalid hostname, but
> it is a fqdn hostname which will pass the check by the second clause.
It is a valid UTF8 hostname in a context where UTF8 is allowed, but the
EHLO command isn't such a context.
--
Viktor.
_______________________________________________
Postfix-users mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
