OOT: Mail rejected with bogus helo
glenn.steen at gmail.com
Fri Apr 18 09:31:27 IST 2008
On 17/04/2008, mikea <mikea at mikea.ath.cx> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 12:59:52PM -0400, Matt Kettler wrote:
> > Glenn Steen wrote:
> > >
> > >> 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.
> > Erm, I'm not sure what difference you're implying exists between "a plain
> > word that looks like an IP address" and an "IP address literal". I'm also
> > not sure what you mean by "a domain name looking like an IP address".
> > The HELO string in question was "10.10.16.24", sans quotes, which matches
> > RFC2821's definition of IPv4-address-literal in section 4.1.3, which is in
> > turn a sub-type of address-literal in 4.1.2. This makes it 100% valid
> > syntactically.
> With respect, I have to differ with you. This point arises from time
> to time on other lists, and I had to be educated about it myself.
As have we all.
Thank you Mike, for the work of explaining it in detail.
> <mode "rules-lawyer">
> To put it in the mildest of terms, I agree that it is not good practice
> to expose as a HELO a non-routable IP written as an address literal. but
> that's not what I'm blocking on at my shop.
email: glenn < dot > steen < at > gmail < dot > com
work: glenn < dot > steen < at > ap1 < dot > se
More information about the MailScanner