On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 00:13:54 +0100 Brian <a...@cityscape.co.uk> wrote:
> On Fri 17 Oct 2014 at 03:20:44 +0200, lee wrote: > > > Brian <a...@cityscape.co.uk> writes: > > > > > Not that I'm suggesting setting up exim to offer an invalid HELO; > > > it will lead to trouble sooner or later. However, as a reason for > > > mail being rejected or not arriving it doesn't come top of the > > > list. > > > > Not accepting invalid HELOs is pretty high on the list because it's > > a very simple check. It gets rid of quite a lot of spam with > > minimal resource usage. > > It could also get rid of a lot of legitimate mail because of > misconfigured clients. ISPs get flack doing that so they come > to a decision whether it is worth being so strict. Many ignore > invalid HELOs. > > On the whole, paid-for smarthosts are very forgiving with email from their customers, as they are mostly dealing with email client applications of dubious provenance, and they are either accepting mail from their own networks or it will be authenticated. A public-facing SMTP server, accepting arbitrary unauthenticated email needs to be a bit more picky, and if a network MTA has an invalid HELO, someone should be told to fix it fairly quickly. -- Joe -- 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/20141018082733.31419...@jresid.jretrading.com
