On Tue, 16 Dec 1997, Skye Merlin Poier wrote:
>
> 1997-12-16 14:32:33 rejected HELO: syntactically invalid argument(s): web_1.pjcc.com
> 1997-12-16 14:35:01 rejected HELO: syntactically invalid argument(s): vancouver_nt2.glenvan.glenayre.com
> 1997-12-16 14:39:50 rejected HELO: syntactically invalid argument(s): ITAC_Toronto.itac.ca
> 1997-12-16 14:40:12 rejected HELO: syntactically invalid argument(s): PC_andyp.direct.ca
> 1997-12-16 14:40:23 rejected HELO: syntactically invalid argument(s): philip_nt
> 1997-12-16 14:41:25 rejected HELO: syntactically invalid argument(s): PC_andyp.direct.ca
> 1997-12-16 14:46:28 rejected HELO: syntactically invalid argument(s): web_1.pjcc.com
> 1997-12-16 14:46:34 rejected HELO: syntactically invalid argument(s): web_1.pjcc.com
> 1997-12-16 14:55:36 rejected EHLO: syntactically invalid argument(s): wlt_iii.wltsoftware.com
> 1997-12-16 14:55:38 rejected HELO: syntactically invalid argument(s): wlt_iii.wltsoftware.com
>
> Now granted, all these host names either don't exist or return screwy errors
> when I try to look them up, but I thought exim didn't really care what you
> put after the HELO? Especially since I have host_lookup_nets = "0.0.0.0/0"
> in my configuration file and the 250 HELO reply simply reverses your IP.
There is one thing in common with all these log entries:
hostnames contain an "_", and therefore, are invalid.
My guess is that even though exim doesn't look up the
IPs, it still cares about the properly looking hostnames,
hence this "syntactically" thing shows up.
--
ilya
--
*** Exim information can be found at
http://www.exim.org/ ***
