[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.(*)

> On Tue, 11 Apr 2006, Derek J. Balling wrote:
> > No, this is not a RFC violation.
> >
> > By definition the argument must be a FQDN.  An FQDN is defined as
> > something resolvable, I forget the specific location where it is so
> > defined. Thus, if you HELO with something that isn't resolvable, it
> > isn't an FQDN, and therefore you have not HELO'ed in a syntactically
> > valid manner.

On 12.04.06 05:23, Alan Brown wrote:
> The RFC has a MUST NOT clause associated with non-resolving HELO
> entries, which makes this claim arguable.

the RFC only speaks about resolving provided hostname to connecting IP, not
about any other validation.
-- 
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.
- Have you got anything without Spam in it?
- Well, there's Spam egg sausage and Spam, that's not got much Spam in it.