List Mail User a écrit : > > So we find it is actually not only *not* contained with RFC2821 > any requirement that the HELO/EHLO argument resolve to/match the client IP, > but we find an explicit prohibition on refusing a transaction because of > the lack of match. For those administrators that do want to enforce some > other set of rules for whatever reason(s) they choose, we do still have > section 7.7 which basically is a "anything you think makes sense is OK" > clause - which doesn't require the administrator to be correct, or even > rational but simply to want to impose a rule that he/she believes in, and > that *is* allowed. > >
rfc2821 is indeed hardly usable. one thing that I find amazing is defining helo/ehlo this way: In the EHLO command the host sending the command identifies itself; the command may be interpreted as saying "Hello, I am <domain>" (and, in the case of EHLO, "and I support service extension requests"). this is like saying that the MAIL FROM argument "is an email adress". there's probably enough inspiration for next april rfc "flexible mail transfer protocol". anyone here? PS. it doesn't seem like the problems will be solved by rfc2821bis...
