[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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
 : 	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?


E-mail the word "unsubscribe" to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST. Trouble?  E-mail to listmaster@debian.org .

Reply to: