-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Don wrote:
In the broad scheme of things, this would be very high on my list of
things to change. The RFCs should, IMHO, require a traceable
HELO/EHLO for server "greeting". It is already that way de-facto by
virtue of the checking on HELO that most servers already do for
anti-spam.
The "MUST NOT refuse" verbiage should just be removed.
In reality it doesn't matter, because receivers are already rejecting for
all kinds of reasons, RFC compliant or not.
Mark wrote:
In the meantime, we can all just publish SPF records for our HELO names,
too. I'm seeing in my logs a larger amount of "none" for HELO names than
for MFROM domains. Not sure what that means, exactly. Maybe folks forgot
to set up SPF records for their HELO names as well? At any rate, the
more HELO can be verified the better, of course.
I also get more HELO "None"s than MFROM "None"s (about 8% more), but then
I get 15% more HELO "Pass"es than MFROM "Pass"es! (The rest is "Fail",
"SoftFail", and "Neutral", all of which I get far more often with MFROM
than with HELO -- those are NOT false positives, though, as far as I can
see.)
My mail stream is far from being representative, of course.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHgLmNwL7PKlBZWjsRAk8ZAJ0YymEwhaVtCv68MTT3ekDvzqAmlgCfWrF6
wljInktpklAh6zblHOdE6tQ=
=flf6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org
Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/735/=now
RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/735/
Modify Your Subscription:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=2183229&id_secret=82355220-037aba
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com