On Sun 19 Oct 2014 at 01:19:51 +0200, lee wrote: > Brian <a...@cityscape.co.uk> writes: > > >> > 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. > > Hm, there's not much of a difference, or is there? It's still an IP > address and being used as one, only inside brackets for unknown reasons. > Using IP literals when sending email used to work long ago ...
Earlier today I was using a dbus command and as part of it I typed boolean;true The command didn't work. Looking closer at the web page I changed it to boolean:true Success! Not much of a difference surely; it's all punctuation. :) > >> > 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. > > I'm not sure if they aren't. The RFCs specify what the HELO must be > like, and you could either argue that they comply with RFCs' policy that > you should accept as much as possible or that you're breaking RFCs by > using invalid HELO strings. > > At least they are supporting others in breaking RFCs, and I wonder how > that could not be against their own interests. In any case, it > classifies them as (at least potentially very) unreliable. This is first time I've come across the concept of aiding and abetting the breaking of RFCs. :) (The idea that you are unreliable because you act differently is a very dangerous one). -- 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/19102014190328.bcd41da54...@desktop.copernicus.demon.co.uk
