-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Dan, the formatting of your posting was awful. Please try to make your
postings look nicer, e.g. by sending them in plain-text format instead of
HTML format.
Dan_Mitton(_at_)notes(_dot_)ymp(_dot_)gov wrote:
What about RFC 1123 where it states:
5.2.5 HELO Command: RFC-821 Section 3.5
The sender-SMTP MUST ensure that the <domain> parameter in a
HELO command is a valid principal host domain name for the
client host. As a result, the receiver-SMTP will not have to
perform MX resolution on this name in order to validate the
HELO parameter.
The HELO receiver MAY verify that the HELO parameter really
corresponds to the IP address of the sender. However, the
receiver MUST NOT refuse to accept a message, even if the
sender's HELO command fails verification.
I'm sure there's an RFC implying that greylisting or tar-pitting is
forbidden, too. But since there is no protocol police, we do what's best
for security. If that means rejecting dubious HELO identities and
ignoring the relevant parts of RFCs 1123 and 2821 in the process, so be
it. You are of course free to honor the RFCs and never reject on a bad
HELO.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFnW24wL7PKlBZWjsRAuLOAKD588Rc+2Iqa/Oef4llI6Aha+RNRQCfekZa
y1Da5FuyibrV6YNeD7lhHDY=
=A5K9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------
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/?list_id=735