Double Irony! (was Re: [linux-elitists] ruben's stupid filter)

Bulent Murtezaoglu bm@acm.org
Mon Mar 25 11:23:52 PST 2002


>>>>> "SMcM" == Shawn McMahon <smcmahon@eiv.com> writes:
    SMcM> begin quoting what Dan Wilder said on Mon, Mar 25, 2002 at
    SMcM> 09:40:55AM -0800:
    >>  The point pertained to RFC1123's requiring on the one hand a
    >> valid principal host domain name, while on the other hand
    >> prohibiting later in 5.2.5 the refusal of email from hosts not
    >> complying with the requirement.

    SMcM> I think you might be misinterpreting it. [...]

I don't think he is.  Maybe one ought to keep in mind the "be
conservative in what you send, be liberal in what accept" mindset 
while reading these things.  The RFC is saying "this is what legal
behaviour is, but on this particular issue you must not police it."

I will not claim expertise, but this topic does come up in
comp.mail.sendmail periodically.  The consensus seems to be that the
most you can reasonably do is to refuse if the domain mentioned in
HELO is _sytactically_ incorrect.  (if you check the headers of this
message you'll see that I'm relying on this reading of the RFC for my
outgoing mail).

cheers,

BM



More information about the linux-elitists mailing list