On Wed, 20 Sep 2006, Steffen Kaiser wrote: > On Wed, 20 Sep 2006, Jan-Pieter Cornet wrote: > >> On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 01:44:22AM -0700, John Rudd wrote: >>> But: >>> 1) to reject based on the content of the HELO string is an RFC violation >> >> This is a blatant and oft-repeated lie. Section 4.1.4 in RFC2821 contains >> very specific wording. Only an IP mismatch is disallowed as a reason for >> rejection. For any other violation, even if it's a local policy violation, >> you are allowed to reject the HELO/EHLO argument. > > RFC2821 speaks about EHLO, what about HELO? >
Section 2.2.1: [...] Unless the different characteristics of HELO must be identified for interoperability purposes, this document discusses only EHLO. [...] Section 4.1.4 doesn't mention different characteristics of HELO so this section applies to both HELO an EHLO. Regards, Kees. -- Kees Theunissen F.O.M.-Institute for PlasmaPhysics "Rijnhuizen", Nieuwegein, Netherlands E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Tel: (+31|0)306096724, Fax: (+31|0)306031204 _______________________________________________ NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list [email protected] http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
