On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 02:41:30PM -0500, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> o The domain name given in the EHLO command MUST be either a primary
>host name (a domain name that resolves to an address RR) or, if
>the host has no name, an address literal, as described in
>Section 4.1.3 and discussed
On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 03:11:57PM -0400, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> The language in RFC 5231 does not explicitly say that the HELO name
> should be resolvable, but strongly implies it.
No, it does. Note that "domain" is given as the argument to
EHLO, and see how "domain" is defined in 2.3.5.
On 7/5/17 2:45 PM, Robert Schetterer wrote:
Am 05.07.2017 um 19:15 schrieb Viktor Dukhovni:
On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 06:57:17PM +0200, Stefan Sticht wrote:
Is there a RFC or similar which suggests/requires that the helo name should
be DNS resolvable?
SMTP is defined in RFC 5321 (which
Am 05.07.2017 um 19:15 schrieb Viktor Dukhovni:
> On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 06:57:17PM +0200, Stefan Sticht wrote:
>
>> Is there a RFC or similar which suggests/requires that the helo name should
>> be DNS resolvable?
>
> SMTP is defined in RFC 5321 (which obsoletes 2821 and 821).
>
I think the
On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 06:57:17PM +0200, Stefan Sticht wrote:
> is there a RFC or similar which suggests/requires that the helo
> name should be DNS resolvable?
I think you are looking for RFC 5321:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5321#section-2.3.5
See also section 4.1.4 as linked from there,
On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 06:57:17PM +0200, Stefan Sticht wrote:
> Is there a RFC or similar which suggests/requires that the helo name should
> be DNS resolvable?
SMTP is defined in RFC 5321 (which obsoletes 2821 and 821).
--
Viktor.
Hi,
is there a RFC or similar which suggests/requires that the helo name
should be DNS resolvable?
Cheers,
Stefan
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
