"Hector Santos" <winserver(_dot_)support(_at_)winserver(_dot_)com> writes:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lloyd Zusman" <ljz(_at_)asfast(_dot_)com>
To: <spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2004 12:09 PM
Subject: [spf-discuss] Re: SPF HELO checking
Yeah ... for some reason I forgot to change the address before sending
this reply. :)
But I can see now that this might be of general interest, so I'll keep
my response in this list.
Perhaps that was your intent all along. Nice try Buddy! <g>
Well, no. I was just absent-minded (a state I all too often fall into)
about changing the address before sending. My smiley expressed bemused
embarrassment about that.
Ah ... I get it now. When you write "checked", you mean checked via
SPF.
Out of curiosity, what is the general consensus as to the value of
rejecting mail with non-valid hostnames in the HELO string?
In my view, a high value. But you have to watch for backward compatibilty.
In other words, if the clients attempts to use a valid formatted client
domain name, then that your trigger to perform a check.
If a legit systems fails, trust me, they will complain. You will hear from
them. But don't expect the "Spammer" to call you up to complain about it.
:-)
Well, I have done this kind of checking in the past, and the complaints
often come in cases where the sender is just a not-too-tech-savvy user
whose mailer or ISP doesn't handle HELO properly. In these cases, I've
found it difficult to get this corrected. I then have to maintain a
"valid senders with invalid HELO strings" whitelist.
I'm not sure if this is really worthwhile. Perhaps it's best to just
allow badly formatted HELO strings and be done with it.
Opinions?
--
Lloyd Zusman
ljz(_at_)asfast(_dot_)com
God bless you.