[RFCI-Discuss] about FQDN for our smtp servers

[Matus UHLAR - fantomas]

> > >> some MTAs will reject you you if
> > >>your helo doesn't resolve.

> > >So is this.(*)

> > This is debatable. The RFCs are self-contradictory here (one RFC 
> > requires clients to use a "canonical" name, but doesn't allow servers to 
> > check for that). of course, even requiring helo has been controversial 
> > for some time...

On 11.04.06 22:46, Alex van den Bogaerdt wrote:
> This has come up here before.  Your statement is false in multiple ways.
> 
> Indeed, >>something<< is not allowed by this RFC.  But people seem
> to think it means you cannot do >>anything<<.  That isn't right.
> 
> 1: It is most certainly allowed to verify the provided parameter.
> 2: One must not refuse to accept a message if the verification fails.

RFC talks about verification if provided hostname maps to the
client's IP, not about any other verification.

e.g. I may verify if the provided helo is acceptable on my system, RFC
doesn't disallow refusing client if THIS verification fails :)

The RFC doesn't say anything about the fact that provided hostname does not
exist...

-- 
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uhlar at fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
   One OS to rule them all, One OS to find them, 
One OS to bring them all and into darkness bind them