On Tue, 10 Mar 1998, Soenke Lange wrote: : > Well, OK, you might call them misconfigured. But read this quote from : > rfc1985: "[...] there is no documented stipulation for checking the : > authenticity of the remote host name, as given in the HELO or EHLO command." : > : > I cannot find any pointers in more or less official documents stateing that : > HELO/EHLO *should* be followed by the same argument as the reverse : > DNS-lookup tells. Do you agree? : > : > So why should Smail block any mail coming from mailhosts not correctly : > announcing their hostname in the smtp-greeting ? Certainly, a lot of spam : > could be blocked this way, but on the other hand, lots of 'legal' mail get : > lost too :( : Ok .. your right .. but why cant the mailer announced his legal name ...
Maybe not every MTA has options to turn it on; it's possible the `/bin/hostname' (possibly lots of MTA's depend on that name) gives another hostname as the reverse nameserverlookup does. : I'm still searching in the rfc .. there was something like : If you choose to not use the canonical name in HELO, you cannot insist that : mailers accept mails from you ... as I remember ... maybe it read something : different, but thats whats in the moment came in my mind. I had a look in the RFC database, but couldn't find anything. If you can find it, I'd like to hear :) : don't take me wrong ... : this feature is off by default in debian version of smail : Soenke OK, that's the way it should be IMHO. : ps.... as for debian .. smail should be as open as possible ... : but that's not the way the upstream version of smail will go :-( Maybe the authors of Smail can be convinced not to do thing not common on the Internet, which even might violate the RFC's? bye, Remco -- E-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST. Trouble? E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
