On Fri 17 Oct 2014 at 03:18:14 +0200, lee wrote: > Brian <a...@cityscape.co.uk> writes: > > > On Mon 13 Oct 2014 at 04:06:27 +0200, lee wrote: > > > >> Harry Putnam <rea...@newsguy.com> writes: > >> > >> > lee <l...@yagibdah.de> writes: > >> > > >> > [...] > >> > > >> > Thanks for the tips. > >> > > >> >>> SMTP>> EHLO 2xd > >> > > >> >> That's an invalid helo string. > >> > > >> > Is a valid one made up of just the full fqdn? > >> > >> See https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2821#section-4.1.1.1 > >> > >> It says to either use the fqdn or, if not possible, an IP > >> literal. However, it's common practise to deny IP addresses in HELO > >> greatings. > > > > An address literal is not the same as an IP address. An MTA should not > > be rejecting mail on the basis that the HELO is an address literal. > > Oh, then what is it?
Using an example from RFC5321, an address literal is [123.255.37.2]. An IP address would presumably be 123.255.37.2. > > It's probably academic what the HELO is most of the time. Many ISPs > > will accept any old rubbish for it. > > That's a misconfiguration they should fix. You tell them. :) They might say they are not breaking any RFCs and will accept any mail they feel like doing. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141017231252.gm23...@copernicus.demon.co.uk
