On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 18:10:53 +0100 Philippe Cerfon <philc...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 2:11 AM, Wietse Venema <wie...@porcupine.org> wrote: > > With "smtpd_helo_required = yes", the Postfix SMTP server requires > > HELO (or EHLO) before the MAIL, ETRN and AUTH commands (*). > I've just tried it vor ETRN, and as far as I understand the RFC it > should not be necessary for ETRN (as well as AUTH and STARTTLS which > you named) to require HELO/EHLO. > > > > If you disagree, then you MUST show the evidence that Postfix > > behaves otherwise. > Well,.. I do not claim that the RFC is superior in all points. I've > just read that HELO/EHLO should be only necessary for mail > transactions (=> MAIL)... q.e.d. ;-) > > > I don't wanna be nit-picking,.. but as I read through rfc 5321 right > now, I found some other places where postfix might be not stricly > speaking compliant... or where the check/restriction keywords forbid > more that the rfc forbids. > Should this brought to the attention of the developers? (-devel list or so?) No it should not - they know. The RFCs were written way before the problems we have now. Feel free to update the RFCs if you so wish. -- John
