Author: Matt Fretwell Date: To: exim Subject: Re: [exim] Exim server behind NAT router (and HELO)
Brian Candler wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 08:29:38PM -0500, Greg A. Woods wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Sure; by all means it can (or even 'must') perform that test. But it is
> not subsequently allowed to use the results of that test to influence
> whether or not it accepts mail from that particular client.
If, according to the RFC's, a client MUST helo with a valid hostname, and
doesn't, why should the reference to 'must not refuse to accept', (or
something similiar), be adhered to?
If someone who is trying to connect to our system(s) can't be arsed
adhering to the RFC's, why should we pay any gorm to the RFC's?
