On Tue, 7 Apr 2015 13:23:33 +0200 Vincent Lefevre <vinc...@vinc17.net> wrote:
> On 2015-04-04 10:02:22 +0100, Joe wrote: > > On Fri, 3 Apr 2015 20:39:26 -0500 > > David Wright <deb...@lionunicorn.co.uk> wrote: > > > I think I/we ought to be using .local > > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6762 > > > because this won't get onto the Internet. > > > > Really? I've seen an Exchange Server refuse mail from a BT server > > for this connection, the "BT server" is actually the client. > > > because the latter identified itself with .local as tld in the HELO. > > I doubt this has anything to do with BT. MTA's will generally provide > the FQDN as the HELO name (as described in the corresponding RFC), and > if the FQDN has been chosen to end with .local then you'll get that in > the HELO. My point was that the default is only of use for a machine directly exposed to the Net, with a hostname resolvable in public DNS. This one clearly wasn't, and its admin should have overridden the default. And should have *known* that it was something he/she needed to fix. > Anyway the HELO should really be ignored in practice as it > provides no useful information for the recipient. > Possibly so, but it is currently an integral part of the SMTP transaction, and it is a common requirement of a receiving mail server that the sender's HELO be resolvable in public DNS. It's one of the common options offered by exim4, though not the default. -- Joe -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150407192020.3e070...@jresid.jretrading.com