Re: [evolution-patches] Use of invalid HELO.

[Jeffrey Stedfast <fejj novell com>]

I find it amusing how you argue "be liberal in what you accept" yet
configure your servers to be anal retentive. but whatever.

better and simpler to just get rid of the whole hostname lookup shit and
just always use the ip address and be done with it.

Jeff

On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 22:41 +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 17:13 -0500, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> > I could make this argument against the smtp implementation (or
> > getaddrinfo) far easier than can be made against evolution, but I
> > don't see you "fixing" either of those...
> 
> The rules for hostnames, labels and domain names are subtly different,
> and I believe there are times when it's considered valid for an
> underscore to appear in the DNS database, while RFC2821 is very clear
> about it being invalid in HELO.
> 
> It makes some sense for an SMTP server to be strict about what it
> accepts -- you can cut out a _lot_ of crap by refusing obvious RFC
> breakage. Yes, I can probably work around this particular problem by
> making my machines reject mail submitted with invalid HELO _only_ when
> unauthorised, given that I've already delayed the rejection to RCPT time
> anyway. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't _also_ fix Evolution not to
> violate RFC2821 in the first place.
> 
> > can you imagine implementing hostname validation in every app? as
> > if...
> 
> There are relatively few cases where the RFC compliance of a domain name
> is as strictly checked. I made a judgement and considered it sanest to
> place the sanity check where I did. If you disagree, please be specific
> about where you want it and unless I violently disagree with you, I'll
> put it where you like -- but please don't just heckle.
>