OOT: Mail rejected with bogus helo

Glenn Steen glenn.steen at gmail.com
Thu Apr 17 15:23:16 IST 2008

On 17/04/2008, Matt Kettler <mkettler at evi-inc.com> wrote:
> Glenn Steen wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >  Not quite right there my friend....
> > >
> > :-) Look again... This is all about DNS address verification. Not
> > relevant to the rejection of a malformed HELO/EHLO.
> > The RFCs actually _demand_ that you reject those.
> >
> >
>  Actually, the RFCs do not demand you reject a malformed HELO, and you know
> that as well as I do. However, they do OK it when the malformed HELO will
:-) Yeah.
> cause your Received: headers to violate RFC formats.
Exactly. Next best thing.

>  Regardless it is still 100% RFC compliant to accept a malformed HELO if you
> don't ever quote it in a Received: header, or otherwise modify it so the
> Received: header you generate is compliant.

>  Also, this thread is about using an IP as a HELO, which is NOT a malformed
> HELO per the RFCs. Therefore it is still against the RFCs to refuse mail
> because the HELO is an IP address.
Are you thinking "a plain word that looks like an IP address" then?
Cause I'm pretty sure (boy am I going to get it... Haven't reread the
exact wording:-) that the demand is for Ip address literals, like
Steve points out, not a domain name looking like an IP address...
Oh well.

-- Glenn
email: glenn < dot > steen < at > gmail < dot > com
work: glenn < dot > steen < at > ap1 < dot > se

More information about the MailScanner mailing list