Great! Hope's these get accepted in Courier. Just a quick question. As was reading up on my RFC and came across RFC1123 which states that you MUST NOT reject bad HELO's? Is this behaviour and that of bofhcheckhelo "legal" to RFC 1123 or more current RFC's? Is RFC1123 superseded by some RFC (can't seem to find a RFC-repository that gives me accurate information on this) which allows rejecting of bad HELO's?
Kind Regards, Sander Holthaus > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Grzegorz Janoszka > Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 4:31 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [courier-users] Patch: two new options for checking HELO > > > BOFHCHECKHELO is too big restriction (I have many false > positives), so I decided to write a patch and add two new > options for esmtpd end > esmtpd-ssl: > > REJECTNONFQDNHELO set to 1 rejects all non fqdn HELOs, such > as HELO sdfwew > > REJECTUNKNOWNHELO set to 1 rejects all non resolvable to A or > MX HELOs, such as HELO there.is.no.such.name > > The patch (to the latest available tar.gz, but compiles with > some earlier > versions) is attached. > > If it will be accepted and some more options (related to HELO > checking) will be needed, I can add them. > > I will be thankful for any feedback. > > Regards, > > -- > Grzegorz Janoszka ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by Black Hat Briefings & Training. Attend Black Hat Briefings & Training, Las Vegas July 24-29 - digital self defense, top technical experts, no vendor pitches, unmatched networking opportunities. Visit www.blackhat.com _______________________________________________ courier-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/courier-users
