Keith Moore writes:
3. 821, 1123, and subsequent revisions all seem to be based on the
assumption that if you're operating an SMTP server, you're trying in good
faith to deliver (legitimate) email reliably. I'm not sure this assumption
And you should have a pretty good idea of what your IP address is.
Seen from that perspective, maybe 5321's language about EHLO arguments could
use some updating along the following lines:
- For a very many reasons [which could be listed, or not], SMTP servers have
no reasonable expectation of being able to determine the validity or
legitimacy of a message based on comparison of the EHLO command argument
with anything else at all. Therefore if what you're trying to do is
reliably deliver legitimate mail (for some meaning of legitimate),
validation of EHLO arguments is useless and strongly NOT RECOMMENDED.
The exact phraseology is only secondary. The point I was making is that I
see that EHLO/HELO validation is employed in practice, and it is in
practical use. And based on my own experience, it is highly effective. Like
I said, in 20+ years I've been doing strict domain validation on HELO/EHLO I
do not recall a single false positive, and a mind-boggling amount of crap
that got blocked.
And I think that in practical situations this is going to outrank, in
peoples' minds, any demand that they MUST NOT do that.
Of course, if your goal is really to discard mail for no good reason, and
you're not handling incoming mail for anyone but yourself, have at it!
Just have the decency to blackhole the mail rather than bounce it, since
you're really not doing anyone any favors.
On that point I'll also have to disagree. It's better to reject the mail
with a 5xx, than /dev/null it.
pgpXSy6s5ybke.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________
ietf-smtp mailing list
ietf-smtp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp