Alex van den Bogaerdt wrote:
Exactly. This confirms my interpretation that EHLO is
SUPPOSED to correspond with the connect ip.
{...]
I would have expected "SHOULD NOT" if your version was
to be supported.
Hi, it would be nice if you could help to get 2821bis in
shape, see the (so far very quiet) discussions on the IETF
SMTP list.
Just one of many interesting "minor" points: The new ABNF
restricts <address-literal> to EHLO introducing an optional
explanation, with a clear SGOULD NOT for <address-literal>.
But HELO needs an FQDN, no <address-literal>. That's the
state in the initial draft, I didn't check the actual text
in chapter 3 etc., let alone the details you discuss here.
The drafts are here (I have not yet read the latter):
http://ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-00
http://ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-klensin-rfc2821-security-00
For a "manually edited" ABNF-diff (2821 vs. 2821bis) see:
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.smtp/4755
If you have some pet peeves with 2821 (or difficulties to
proye your points with the 2821 text) - now's a chance to
get this fixed.
Bye, Frank
-------
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