On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 10:25:37 +0100 Brian <a...@cityscape.co.uk> wrote:
> On Mon 13 Oct 2014 at 04:06:27 +0200, lee wrote: > > > Harry Putnam <rea...@newsguy.com> writes: > > > > > lee <l...@yagibdah.de> writes: > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > Thanks for the tips. > > > > > >>> SMTP>> EHLO 2xd > > > > > >> That's an invalid helo string. > > > > > > Is a valid one made up of just the full fqdn? > > > > See https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2821#section-4.1.1.1 > > > > It says to either use the fqdn or, if not possible, an IP > > literal. However, it's common practise to deny IP addresses in HELO > > greatings. > > An address literal is not the same as an IP address. An MTA should not > be rejecting mail on the basis that the HELO is an address literal. > > It's probably academic what the HELO is most of the time. Many ISPs > will accept any old rubbish for it. > > The routine exim4 HELO test is disabled by default, but simply checks that it is a hostname which can be resolved in public DNS. I enable it, and so do a lot of others. It is by default enabled in Exchange, which is in widespread use, and I've seen an Exchange server reject an email arriving from a BT server which had a '.local' TLD in its HELO. -- 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/20141013105151.57364...@jresid.jretrading.com
