> Yes, and I also believe that .local is valid rfc for ehlo/helo. I > would not run that one. That is too high risk, as you are seeing, > unless you can weight it, in which case, by all means, run it with > a low weight.
Heh... maybe it's valid for RFC <g> but the ".local" TLD isn't a valid one (try a "dig .local NS" <g>) also, a whole lof of badly configured servers use such "private TLDs" and it's almost time that a bunch of wannabe admins get some ass kicks and *FIX* their darn servers; not only since the helo string is a mess, but ALSO (and especially) because most of those misconfigured systems are ALSO abused so those monkey admins have to learn that they won't get any bananas until they won't correctly setup their systems (as a note a lot of those "local" and the like servers don't even have a valid postmaster/abuse address or, if they have one, there's nobody reading emails sent there :-P) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july _______________________________________________ Assp-user mailing list Assp-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/assp-user
