On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 09:37:31PM +0200, Julian Mehnle wrote:
[Reordered the conversation for conveniance]
And did you read:
"Unless the different characteristics of HELO must be identified for
interoperability purposes, this document discusses only EHLO."
?
Of course I did. This statement implies that, unless explicitly specified
otherwise, all specifications of EHLO in RFC 2821 don't affect HELO. And
since there is no explicit statement saying that the semantics of HELO
should change from RFC 821, HELO is not affected by RFC 2821.
I was under the impression that EHLO and HELO are largely the same. EHLO
has extentions, HELO has not. EHLO is HELO+Extensions.
I read the quoted part above as:
Unless there is a difference between EHLO and HELO, only EHLO is mentioned
by RFC2821 but this also applies to HELO (again: unless there is a difference).
I use RFC 2821 3.2 to show my point:
"In the EHLO command the host sending the command identifies itself;
the command may be interpreted as saying "Hello, I am <domain>" (and,
in the case of EHLO, "and I support service extension requests")."
This can only be explained if the first EHLO ("In the EHLO command...") talks
about both EHLO and HELO, wereas the second EHLO ("...in the case of EHLO, ...")
talks about the difference between HELO and EHLO.
Actually only EHLO is required to be a valid FQDN, HELO isn't. Read
RFC 2821 carefully.
Maybe you could be so good to provide some more hints than just an
entire RFC?
Well, if you search for something like "HELO is not required to contain a
valid FQDN", then you're out of luck. There has _never_ been such a
requirement for HELO, not even in RFC 821.
I think you are wrong.
RFC 821 3.7:
"Whenever domain names are used in SMTP only the official names
are used, the use of nicknames or aliases is not allowed."
Clearly this addresses cases like "example" in stead of "example.org.".
It also means CNAMEs aren't allowed.
RFC 821 4.1.2 (command syntax):
"HELO <SP> <domain> <CRLF>"
You can't read this as anything else than FQDN (a term introduced later
than RFC821 I think?)
Actually RFC821 is less relaxed than RFC2821. However, RFC821 does
allow "org." while RFC2821 does not.
Alex
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com