On Mon 13 Oct 2014 at 10:51:51 +0100, Joe wrote: > On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 10:25:37 +0100 > Brian <a...@cityscape.co.uk> wrote: > > > On Mon 13 Oct 2014 at 04:06:27 +0200, lee wrote: > > > > > Harry Putnam <rea...@newsguy.com> writes: > > > > > > > lee <l...@yagibdah.de> writes: > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > Thanks for the tips. > > > > > > > >>> SMTP>> EHLO 2xd > > > > > > > >> That's an invalid helo string. > > > > > > > > Is a valid one made up of just the full fqdn? > > > > > > See https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2821#section-4.1.1.1 > > > > > > It says to either use the fqdn or, if not possible, an IP > > > literal. However, it's common practise to deny IP addresses in HELO > > > greatings. > > > > An address literal is not the same as an IP address. An MTA should not > > be rejecting mail on the basis that the HELO is an address literal. > > > > It's probably academic what the HELO is most of the time. Many ISPs > > will accept any old rubbish for it. > > The routine exim4 HELO test is disabled by default, but simply checks > that it is a hostname which can be resolved in public DNS. I enable it, > and so do a lot of others. It is by default enabled in Exchange, which > is in widespread use, and I've seen an Exchange server reject an email > arriving from a BT server which had a '.local' TLD in its HELO.
Four ISPs in the UK have over 90% of the market. None of the four appears to be the least bit bothered about HELO as "AutumnLeaves". On the basis that it is invalid a few of the smaller ones are but then proceed when given "AutumnLeaves.com". Not that I'm suggesting setting up exim to offer an invalid HELO; it will lead to trouble sooner or later. However, as a reason for mail being rejected or not arriving it doesn't come top of the list. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/13102014133206.6a22c0893...@desktop.copernicus.demon.co.uk
