On Wed, Oct 01, 2008 at 05:12:39PM +0200, Tullio Andreatta ML wrote: > Jimmy Spam: >>> what is the advantage of force ehlo? > > Aiko Barz: >> Section: 4.1.1.1 (http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2821.html) >> "In any event, a client MUST issue HELO or EHLO before starting a mail >> transaction." >> >> You may block broken spammer software at a very early stage. > > ... but since Sendmail MTA required it from the beginning (when the > only open source choice was SM), actually every spammer software sends > HELO (very broken software too).
You are right. I looked at this issue closely today: Not one spam
mail without HELO/EHLO.
> So who you will block with this patch?
At least there is a low risk for false positives, since Google and so
do the same...
So long,
Aiko
--
:wq ✉
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
