Re: [exim4] Testing and making sense of smtp output
On Fri 17 Oct 2014 at 03:18:14 +0200, lee wrote:
> Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> writes:
>
> > On Mon 13 Oct 2014 at 04:06:27 +0200, lee wrote:
> >
> >> Harry Putnam <reader@newsguy.com> writes:
> >>
> >> > lee <lee@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.
Reply to: