> On Fri, 22 May 2009, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > >> On 22.05.09 06:29, John Hardin wrote: >>> They will especially get a clue if many sites reject their traffic with a >>> message like "your HELO should be your actual public FQDN, you moron." >>> (worded more politely, of course) >> >> yes, it should be, but you also MUST NOT reject if it is not. >> There are always cases when sender does not use it...
On 22.05.09 09:01, John Hardin wrote: > I have milter-regex reject connections from the Internet at large if > there's no period at all in the HELO. This covers FQDNs and [x.x.x.x] IP > address literals per RFC2821 3.6, 4.1.1.1 and 4.1.3. Granted my pithy > comment above does not cover all valid cases. > > Can you give me a reasonable example of when this rejection rule would be > inappropriate? I was mentioning cases where someone compares HELO to FQDN and rejects connections if they do not match. That was indicated by the message (even with different wording). My mailserver rejects bogus HELO - without dots, and my own hostnames/IPs and I don't object against thopse reasons... -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. The 3 biggets disasters: Hiroshima 45, Tschernobyl 86, Windows 95
