On Fri, 10 Dec 2004, Douglas Otis wrote:
I could suggest the Port field being zero might be excluded from your
comparison, as this field may change to include general policy
assertions. With that in mind, it might be better to ignore this field.
Currently, if the Port field is non-zero then we acknowledge that
something's going on that we don't understand (or the domain owner screwed
up publishing the record), and we err on the side of caution by accepting
the HELO. Should I be rejecting mail if I don't understand the meaning of
the Port field? Can you promise me that there will _never_ be a
definition of the Port field which means I shouldn't really reject?
When you have this script working, could you send me a copy with your
copyright statements and I'll be happy to publish this on the
csvmail.org site. I want to be sure to provide appropriate accolades.
http://david.woodhou.se/exim-csv-acl.txt has the current version with the
localhost exception and with a couple of lines of licence and
documentation. I'm away for the weekend and on GPRS, so can't sanely test
any changes to make it more relaxed about the Port field until Monday.
Tony may be inclined to play though :)
--
dwmw2