Re: [Exim] use of _ in HELO... again

> > I've run into a problem where I've been told by management to break the RFCs
> > and allow the use of _ in an HELO.
>
> I can sympathise with you being leaned-on to do that. Indeed we've
> got a (rather) short list called helo_accept_junk_hosts, of IPs from
> which it was politically expedient to accent broken HELOs. I see that
> *.house.gov is in there... bleagh.

ATM, I've done this only for one host.

> But when you do it as a matter of course, then from our point of view
> you become part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

"we" are part of the problem. I am not. (we is defined as the company I
work for) If it costs us money, fix it. That's the way they see things.
Also a "set it and forget it" comes to mind.

> One thing that this Sob*g virus incident has reminded me about, is
> that viruses with their own SMTP engine don't re-try, so it can be
> very beneficial to respond to the first try of any dubious mail offer
> with a defer, even if you accept soon afterwards ;-) That's just
> another flavour of "greylisting", I guess.

Most of those don't helo with a . in the name. They don't want me to bother
with that either even if it does save on bandwidth.

> > I sent them the relative RFCs about this. They came back with "RFCs aren't
> > standards".
>
> Ah, the answer that I once got was "that's what Microsoft does, so
> it's obviously correct".

Here's a big problem. They don't see everything M$ does as correct,
however, it's "wide spread" so that's the way WE will operate.

--
Lab tests show that use of micro$oft causes cancer in lab animals