[ On Monday, March 21, 2005 at 10:29:17 (-0800), Fred Viles wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: [exim] Exim server behind NAT router (and HELO)
>
> On 21 Mar 2005 at 2:17, Greg A. Woods wrote about
> "Re: [exim] Exim server behind NAT r":
>
> |...
> | Regardless RFC 1123 is also still the main part of the mandatory host
> | requirements standard (part of STD 3), the single most important (though
> | as I said, somewhat dated and politically flawed) requirements document
> | for all Internet participants. It still reads, in part:
> |
> | 5.2.5 HELO Command: RFC-821 Section 3.5
> |
> | The sender-SMTP MUST ensure that the <domain> parameter in a
> | HELO command is a valid principal host domain name for the
> | client host. [[ .... ]]
>
> And goes on to say:
... nothing more relvant to this issue. Really.
Like I said, what the server does or does not do, must or must not do,
is totally irrelevant there. This is _only_ about the _client_.
The client host _MUST_ ensure that the <domain> parameter in a HELO (or
EHLO) command is a valid principal host domain name for the client host.
Period. No exceptions. No allowances. No leeway. It's a very Very
VERY simple little requirement and one that is almost impossible for any
valid SMTP client host on the modern Internet to not be able to comply
with.
Why do you continue try to make invalid excuses for the kind of lameness
that would be necessary for anyone to fail to comply with this simple
little requirement? We have enough lame idiots on the net already and
we do not need to make excuses for any more of them!
--
Greg A. Woods
H:+1 416 218-0098 W:+1 416 489-5852 x122 VE3TCP RoboHack <woods@???>
Planix, Inc. <woods@???> Secrets of the Weird <woods@???>
