[Mimedefang] Non-routable addresses in HELO
michi+mimedefang at relay3.jackal-net.at
Mon Jul 10 15:41:15 EDT 2006
On Mon, 2006-07-10 at 10:26 -0700, John Rudd wrote:
> On Jul 10, 2006, at 7:57 AM, Michael Lang wrote:
> If you're going to be a stickler about what the RFC says, in what you
> require about the sender, then it's probably a good idea to be a
> stickler about the RFC in how your server operates as well.
> Specifically, you may not refuse the message based upon the HELO
uupps .. maybe i pointed out this one, the wrong way ... what i meant
was that, putting in your filter (oct.oct.oct.oct) today and tomorror
the next, doesn't make sense.
It's the wrong way of 'ALLOW ALL, DENY ...'
> My point being: Seems rather hypocritical to complain about the lack of
> merits of the client based upon lack of RFC compliance ... while
> advocating lack of RFC compliance in your server.
in my filter RFC ignorant client Mails get additional SpamScore added,
but as written above, i pointed it out wrong ...
> NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above
> message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it.
> Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com
> MIMEDefang mailing list MIMEDefang at lists.roaringpenguin.com
Michael Lang <michi+mimedefang at relay3.jackal-net.at>
More information about the MIMEDefang