OOT: Mail rejected with bogus helo

[Glenn Steen]

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">
>
(snip)
>
>  </mode>
>
>  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.
>
Same here.

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