[Mimedefang] Non-routable addresses in HELO

[Michael Lang]

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 
> argument.

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 ...

Kind regards
Michael Lang

> _______________________________________________
> 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
> http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
-- 
Michael Lang <michi+mimedefang at relay3.jackal-net.at>