[[ note that your MUA is doing unnecessary quoting of "display-name" parts. ]]
[ On Monday, June 30, 2003 at 20:01:20 (-0400), Troy Settle wrote: ]
> Subject: RE: Now well off-topic - was Re: [Exim] how to configure HELO/EHLO and DNS for multi-homed hosts
>
> Not at all. If you tell someone that your name is 'Woods,' are you
> lying about your identity?
It's not even remotely the same and you know it.
The rules for the client are _VERY_ _EXTREMELY_ clear. Do not try to
confuse this issue with meaningless unrelated drivel.
> Section 3.8.2 seems to be the only one talking about Received Lines, but
Try 4.4.
> Ok, I fess up. I'm in violation here.
No kidding.
> If you're rejecting because a HELO command fails verification, then you
> too are in violation of RFC and this great big huge long thread has been
> for nothing.
Except for one thing: Those of us around at the time 1123 was
published, and any who've bothered to listen to us since, know full well
that this self-contradicting requirement is merely a political
compromise that was only necessary at the time and which has since
become not just unnecessary, but perhaps even a serious liability.
When was the last time you met any ordinary e-mail user who knew exactly
how to interpret Received headers? Why even you yourself have admitted
some level of ignorance as to their basic syntax, never mind the
implications of what they report. The rationale given for this
contradiction in RFC 1123 is so totally bogus today that nobody in their
right mind can seriously believe it holds any weight any more.
--
Greg A. Woods
+1 416 218-0098; <g.a.woods@???>; <woods@???>
Planix, Inc. <woods@???>; VE3TCP; Secrets of the Weird <woods@???>
