In <20060622012247(_dot_)GA30951(_at_)ergens(_dot_)op(_dot_)het(_dot_)net> Alex
van den Bogaerdt <alex(_at_)ergens(_dot_)op(_dot_)het(_dot_)net> writes:
If HELO should always return {PASS, FAIL or NONE}, then this should be in
the spec. Currently it is OK to return NEUTRAL, people publishing such
a record rely on receivers to follow the spec.
Sadly, the HELO checking in DMP was something that Meng didn't really
understand when he wrote up the original SPF spec. I confess that I
didn't see Gordon Fecyk's purpose either. I don't think Meng ever
really liked HELO checking, despite quite a few people such as the
Spamassassin folks really pushing for it. (They implemented HELO
checking before it was even officially allowed.)
In retrospect, there could have been a lot of very useful things done
with the HELO checking with tighter requirements, *always* checking
the HELO domain, etc. However, all we can do now is leverage the fact
that SPF has always fallen back to the HELO domain when the
2821.MAILFROM was null.
Rejecting based solely on the SPF/HELO returning anything other than
FAIL is outside the spec. But then, checking SPFv1 records for the
PRA is also outside the spec.
-wayne
-------
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