Re: smail (again..... sheesh..)
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
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?
E-mail the word "unsubscribe" to firstname.lastname@example.org
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST. Trouble? E-mail to email@example.com .