Kai Schaetzl a écrit :
> Søren Therkelsen wrote on Fri, 16 Dec 2005 11:30:10 +0100:
>
>
>>Received: from [218.65.120.230] (helo=uwo.ca)
>>------------------------------Why should a Canadian university have there
>>mail server in China?
>
>
> Why not? The answer may be obvious in this case, but if you try to
> generalize that this method fails. There is nothing that forces a mail
> server to use a domain suffix for heloing that matches the GeoIP lookup.
> Actually, that may be quite uncommon for various reasons.
>
> There are *much* better methods to get rid of this spam. 1. that IP is on a
> lot of RBLs since it is dynamic IP space.
so? which section of the rfc says we must reject dynamic IPs? just
because you do that doesn't solve the problem.
and, how do you detect dynamic IPs. most are not listed and some lists
include non dynamic IP.
2. if one uses some helo
> verification the above helo will fail because it has only one dot.
ahuh? I didn't yet take a read at rfc4821...
what makes you believe that foo.com.uk is better than foo.com?
as far as I can tell, helo should be fqdn which means:
goes to the top (all nodes valid, and includes a tld).
so
mouss.usebsd.free.nice.guy
isn't fqdn because "guy" isn't a valid tld, but
localhost
arpa
ws
com
yahoo.com
mouss.yahoo.com
are fqdn. it's not about how many dots your have.
This doesn't mean you should accept "helo arpa", but there's no need to
change the law just because it doesn't suit you.
