-----Original Message-----
From: Alex van den Bogaerdt
[mailto:alex(_at_)ergens(_dot_)op(_dot_)het(_dot_)net]
Sent: donderdag 24 november 2005 18:00
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] Re: SPF adoption statistics
On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 04:36:04PM +0000, paddy wrote:
Jon Postel said it best
"Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send"
True, but 'be liberal in what you accept' does not mean 'accept
everything'.
In fact, I am actually quite liberal in what I accept. If the HELO/EHLO A
record lookup fails, I accept; or when it resolves to another IP address
than that of the connecting client, even. I just draw the line at the
HELO/EHLO appearing in a non-FQDN format. Hector called that my mindset.
And it is. :) I want people who send me mail to make the *minimal* effort
to send me something in the HELO/EHLO that looks like they at least glanced
at the manual. Could I lose legitimate mail that way? To which I answer:
if you want to send legitimate mail, send it in a legitimate fashion.
And even then, like I said, I am quite liberal in what I accept.
Anyway, if an RFC says "for <x>, MUST NOT refuse", it does not say any-
thing about "<y>". If other parts say "<y>" must be fully qualified do-
main name, it is OK to refuse when '<y>' isn't.
Exactly.
- Mark
System Administrator Asarian-host.org
---
"If you were supposed to understand it,
we wouldn't call it code." - FedEx
-------
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