On Sun 13/May/2012 18:59:23 +0200 Chris Lewis wrote:
On 12-05-13 05:58 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
On Sun 13/May/2012 11:07:45 +0200 Chris Lewis wrote:
It would be nice if it could be made usable.
This would tend to make a large organization having all of their servers
helo exactly the same way, which flies in the face of industry BCP (eg:
MAAWG), and even if it wasn't specifically RFC5321-illegal, clearly
violates its intent.
I see nothing wrong if an organization uses the same helo name for all
its mailouts. A helo name does not have to be a label of any DNS
record.
Uh what?
RFC5321:
Section 4.1.1.1:
These commands are used to identify the SMTP client to the SMTP
server. The argument clause contains the fully-qualified domain name
of the SMTP client, if one is available.
This has been discussed so many times that we don't need to do it once
more. For one (John Klensin on Jan 2009):
The 1123-imposed requirement (carried forward into Section 4.1.4
Paragraph 6 of 5321) that messages not be rejected on the basis
of a validation failure with the EHLO argument would presumably
remain even if we deprecated 821 and client use of HELO.
http://www.imc.org/ietf-smtp/mail-archive/msg05420.html
Yeah, I suppose you could make all your outbounds have the same name (up
to whatever limit DNS imposes), but clearly this violates the intent.
And it's also very explicitly counter to industry practises/BCP.
I'd agree that violating intents and/or practices is not a good start.
That seems to imply that it is necessary to use scripts to keep helo
names, IP addresses, and SPF in sync. Would that be worth?
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg