you are probably right about the cluster setup. let's quit that topic and deal with something more interesting:
>> still they don't have to fix it to make mail delivery work. the SMTP >> *MUST NOT* bounce mail if the HELO-DNS-comparison fails. (it was you who >> quoted RFC 2821...) > > You are really proud of defending a company with a broken setup, aren't you? no, i am proud to fight poor logic: > Maybe checking HELO is not allowed according to RFC 2821. But sending a wrong > name is not allowed either. first of all, please quote the RFC where it says that a host MUST send a DNS-entry as HELO. (i have never heard about that. all that i know is that the HELO name must follow a certain syntax.) second: *justifying malpractice with someone else's (assumed) malpractice is nothing but proofing yourself wrong again.* i hate that. this kind of ill logic is very widespread even amongst professional programmers and computer scientists. these people belive they can create incompatibilities because "they know better". they don't. they just childishly stopped thinking when they found someone to blame. if you stop thinking, you are not a scientist and your product sucks. if the RFC tells you, that your server *MUST* acceppt mail from poorly setup MTAs, there is nothing to discuss. > So anyone should be free to decide from whom he wants mail and from whom he > doesn't. (which has nothing to do with the topic.) > If Sam decides that his mail host should not be bugged by poor > setups, it's his choice. of course it his "his choice". i might as well demand STARTTLS or use port 12345 for mail (and expect anyone to guess...) that's also my choice. i just won't have any advantage in that except that i bug people like a dogmatist. sam does not have any advantage with his setup. he just doesn't receive mails from people who probably don't have any influence on their provider's smarthost. > For me, I use BOFHCHECKHELO for all hosts that are in any used RBL (and it > fights MANY spam mails without cpu-intensive spam checkers). i don't see a connection between a blacklist entry and the HELO string. if they are blacklistet anyway, why do you check the HELO string at all? > I turned it off > for all others because there are so many wrong setups out there and I have > paying customers that want mail from many of those senders. That may be the > difference. :) this reminds me of discussions about the IDENT service. :( so, i can conclude: as BOFHCHECKHELO is 1 per default, courier-mta is not an RFC-compliant mail-server. now that's great news. :( 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
