Re: [exim] check_helo_slow?

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005, Tony Finch wrote:

> Nevertheless, 1/3 of legitimate senders have broken HELOs

That depends on your definitions of "legitimate" and "broken".

If the HELO is really broken, then they can't, by definition of the
relevant RFC, be "legitimate". They might be "bona fide" - in the
sense that they want to send you mail, and you want to receive that
mail from them, but merely being "bona fide" doesn't cure a violation
of the applicable RFC.

> (whether hostnames or IP addresses)

Could you be a bit more definite about the rating criteria that you
used to come up with this figure, please? I can't really parse what
you're saying here. And did you include trusted mail submission
clients as well as remote MTAs, or not?