Re: [exim] Exim server behind NAT router (and HELO)

Matt Fretwell wrote:

> 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?

because the old "be strict when sending and tolerant when receiving"
principle was really not invented in vain.

> 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?

tit-for-tat computing? Stone age was a while ago.