hi! >> mailx.courier-mta.com[216.254.115.190] just told me that: >>> 517 HELO someservername2.domain.de does not match >>> ::ffff:123.123.12.12 (in reply to MAIL FROM command) >> actually the dns-entry for that address is >> someservername2-1.domain.de > > No. The Host someservername2.domain.de does not even exist.
these were of course just examples. check the headers of this very message and you will see: smtp2-1.tng.de ([213.178.66.95] helo=smtp2.tng.de host output: smtp2-1.tng.de has address 213.178.66.95 95.66.178.213.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer smtp2-1.tng.de. smtp2.tng.de has address 213.178.64.96 smtp2.tng.de has address 213.178.64.95 Host 96.64.178.213.in-addr.arpa not found: 3(NXDOMAIN) Host 95.64.178.213.in-addr.arpa not found: 3(NXDOMAIN) so they DO exist, it's just that DNS ans HELO name don't match. > I think you messed something up in quoting the error because > nonexisting host names should cause another error message. nope. i just pasted the bounce message (and changed the hostnames and the ip-address. useless idea, i know.) > Two different things. > > The thing mentioned in the FAQ is just for recording in the > "Received" header field. The one causing your error is a > spam-protection feature. i don't see how this should prevent spammers from doing anything. spam protection is a complicated thing and cannot be done by simple checkups. >> i use my provider's smtp as smarthost and complained, but they told >> me that this check SHOULD NOT be done according to the RFCs. (they >> did not say which RFC they refer to.) oh, and they said, their smtp-systems are a cluster, so DNS-lookup *cannot* work all the time anyway. still sounds like they're right. > I cannot see this "SHOULD NOT" in RFC 2821 or RFC 821. And I don't > know of any other RFC that applies here. from alessandro's message: RFC2821: > An SMTP server MAY verify that the domain name parameter in the EHLO > command actually corresponds to the IP address of the client. > However, the server MUST NOT refuse to accept a message for this > reason if the verification fails: the information about verification > failure is for logging and tracing only. so, it is definitely a misconfiguration. >> i guess they are right, otherwise they would have been flooded with >> complaints. > > Oh, I think they should have been flooded with complaints. And, of > course, they really should fix their setup. i had never ever received a bounce like the one mentioned before that one. if my provider had done such a stupid thing, thousands of mails would bounce every day. they don't. except from mailx.courier-mta.org. n. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ courier-users mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/courier-users
