Re: [evolution-patches] Use of invalid HELO.
- From: Jeffrey Stedfast <fejj novell com>
- To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2 infradead org>
- Cc: evolution-patches lists ximian com
- Subject: Re: [evolution-patches] Use of invalid HELO.
- Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:20:08 -0500
I honestly just don't care.
On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 00:18 +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 18:53 -0500, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> > 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.
> RFC2821 §4.1.4:
> The SMTP client MUST, if possible, ensure that the domain parameter
> to the EHLO command is a valid principal host name (not a CNAME or MX
> name) for its host. If this is not possible (e.g., when the client's
> address is dynamically assigned and the client does not have an
> obvious name), an address literal SHOULD be substituted for the
> domain name and supplemental information provided that will assist in
> identifying the client.
> I'm intrigued by the "supplemental information" which doesn't seem to be
> permitted (at first glance) by the formal grammar. But leaving that
> aside, it seems to be fairly clear that if you have a valid FQDN, you
> should use it.
] [Thread Prev