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

Jakob Hirsch wrote:

> 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.

My idea of tolerance is a piece of 2" x 4" with luser persuader imprinted
on it :) Tolerance is measured by ones own yardstick.


> > 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.

Grunt.


Matt