Le mercredi 25 octobre à 17:03:00, « Peter Bowyer » à écrit :
> On 25/10/06, Beber <beber@???> wrote:
> > Le mer 25 oct 2006 15:49:32 CEST, « Dave Evans » à écrit :
> >
> > > On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 03:40:42PM +0200, Beber wrote:
> > >> Is there good reason on a common usage to disallow any connection with
> > >> HELO instead of EHLO ?
> > >
> > > There's a good reason /not/ to do that - RFC2821:
> > >
> > > "However, for compatibility with older conforming implementations, SMTP
> > > clients and servers MUST support the original HELO mechanisms as a
> > > fallback."
> >
> > Hum.. Yes. But: Could it be enable only when a ESMTP failed ? Cause I
> > want that people USE auth, and auth with SMTP is not possible.
>
> Then you're trying to fix the wrong problem.
>
> require authenticated = *
>
> in some ACL would ensure that no unauthenticated mail is accepted. If
> you're sure that's what you want...
Yes, that's the thing, but HELO is accept in that place:
~ :( % telnet xxx.net 25
Trying 89.291.440.279...
Connected to xxx.net.
Escape character is '^]'.
220 xxx.net ESMTP Exim 4.62 Thu, 26 Oct 2006 00:50:01 +0200
HELO xxx.net
250 xxx.net Hello xxx.net [82.230.172.234]
HELO is still allowed. I really would like to deny it here.
--
Beber - E-Mail / Jabber (+GMail) : beber_AT_meleeweb.net
http://www.meleeweb.net
