On 11/22/05, Dick St.Peters <stpeters(_at_)netheaven(_dot_)com> wrote:
In both cases, verification fails but is not a good reason to reject.
This is the MUST NOT reject clausule.
I didn't say anything about rejection, but since you brought it up,
yes, verification failing is not an RFC-allowed reason to reject.
Define "reject". Is not accepting the HELO/EHLO (as defined in RFC
2821/4.1.4) a "reject" ? Dont think so.
It says in RFC 2821/4.1.4
If the EHLO command is not acceptable to the SMTP server, 501, 500,
or 502 failure replies MUST be returned as appropriate. The SMTP
server MUST stay in the same state after transmitting these replies
that it was in before the EHLO was received.
So, verifying the HELO/EHLO parameter does not allow to reject a mail
transaction, but implicitly I can choose to not accept the parameter and
thus be unable to enter the transaction state.
Andreas
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
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