Le mercredi 25 octobre à 17:03:00, « Peter Bowyer » à écrit : > On 25/10/06, Beber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Le mer 25 oct 2006 15:49:32 CEST, « Dave Evans » à écrit : > > > > > On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 03:40:42PM +0200, Beber wrote: > > >> Is there good reason on a common usage to disallow any connection with > > >> HELO instead of EHLO ? > > > > > > There's a good reason /not/ to do that - RFC2821: > > > > > > "However, for compatibility with older conforming implementations, SMTP > > > clients and servers MUST support the original HELO mechanisms as a > > > fallback." > > > > Hum.. Yes. But: Could it be enable only when a ESMTP failed ? Cause I > > want that people USE auth, and auth with SMTP is not possible. > > Then you're trying to fix the wrong problem. > > require authenticated = * > > in some ACL would ensure that no unauthenticated mail is accepted. If > you're sure that's what you want...
Yes, that's the thing, but HELO is accept in that place: ~ :( % telnet xxx.net 25 Trying 89.291.440.279... Connected to xxx.net. Escape character is '^]'. 220 xxx.net ESMTP Exim 4.62 Thu, 26 Oct 2006 00:50:01 +0200 HELO xxx.net 250 xxx.net Hello xxx.net [82.230.172.234] HELO is still allowed. I really would like to deny it here. -- Beber - E-Mail / Jabber (+GMail) : beber_AT_meleeweb.net http://www.meleeweb.net
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://www.exim.org/eximwiki/
