On 22/03/18 09:21, Greg Wooledge wrote: > One heuristic that is commonly used is to reject all messages where > the HELO doesn't even syntactically qualify as a valid FQDN -- in other > words, has no dot in it.
I often see this alluded to, but struggle to find evidence - why shouldn't there be a postmaster@com, for example? Or perhaps cic@mil? Is there any reason you can't have an A, MX or any other record on a TLD? Or even the root, though I concede that abuse@. would be easier to understand than just abuse@ [attempts to end sentence without a dot] Presumably there's an RFC that covers this somewhere, but I can't find it. I want richard@nz :-) Richard
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
