Re: IP addresses in helo

2019-11-19 Thread Kris Deugau
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: On 18.11.19 18:10, Gregory Heytings wrote: Bill Cole wrote: Rejecting mail is a far better choice than delivering to a 'spam box' since most users never bother looking there for anything. Rejections at least stand some chance of making enough noise on the sender

Re: IP addresses in helo

2019-11-18 Thread Richard Damon
On 11/18/19 8:55 AM, Gregory Heytings wrote: > > Hi, > >> >> I know it’s an RFC violation, but I see no email that is delivered >> with a bare IP helo that is legitimate. >> > > That might be your experience, but RFC 2821 (3.6) and RFC 5321 (2.3.5 > and 4.1.4) explicitly state that an address

Re: IP addresses in helo

2019-11-18 Thread Dominic Raferd
On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 at 12:23, Dominic Raferd wrote: > > > On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 at 12:00, @lbutlr wrote: > >> Is it safe (or mostly safe) to simply block attempts to deliver mail with >> a helo that is only an IP address? (I am talking about only on >> postfix/stmpd and obviously not on

Re: IP addresses in helo

2019-11-18 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas
Two other users replied to your question. For real-world mail servers, my experience is that the only safe restriction (safe = no false positives) is "reject_unknown_reverse_client_hostname". Irrelevant to HELO argument filtering. On 18.11.19 18:10, Gregory Heytings wrote: Relevant to

Re: IP addresses in helo

2019-11-18 Thread Gregory Heytings
Two other users replied to your question. For real-world mail servers, my experience is that the only safe restriction (safe = no false positives) is "reject_unknown_reverse_client_hostname". Irrelevant to HELO argument filtering. Relevant to rejecting emails. Perhaps I should have

Re: IP addresses in helo

2019-11-18 Thread Kris Deugau
Bill Cole wrote: Rejecting mail is a far better choice than delivering to a 'spam box' since most users never bother looking there for anything. Rejections at least stand some chance of making enough noise on the sender side to get misconfigurations fixed. IME exactly the opposite is true,

Re: IP addresses in helo

2019-11-18 Thread Bill Cole
On 18 Nov 2019, at 8:55, Gregory Heytings wrote: Hi, I know it’s an RFC violation, but I see no email that is delivered with a bare IP helo that is legitimate. That might be your experience, but RFC 2821 (3.6) and RFC 5321 (2.3.5 and 4.1.4) explicitly state that an address literal can

Re: IP addresses in helo

2019-11-18 Thread Bill Cole
On 18 Nov 2019, at 7:22, Gregory Heytings wrote: Hi, Is it safe (or mostly safe) to simply block attempts to deliver mail with a helo that is only an IP address? (I am talking about only on postfix/stmpd and obviously not on postfix/submit or related). No it is not, it's a RFC

Re: IP addresses in helo

2019-11-18 Thread Bill Cole
On 18 Nov 2019, at 6:59, @lbutlr wrote: Is it safe (or mostly safe) to simply block attempts to deliver mail with a helo that is only an IP address? (I am talking about only on postfix/stmpd and obviously not on postfix/submit or related). Yes. There are cases of Special Needs Nodes

Re: IP addresses in helo

2019-11-18 Thread Gregory Heytings
Hi, I know it’s an RFC violation, but I see no email that is delivered with a bare IP helo that is legitimate. That might be your experience, but RFC 2821 (3.6) and RFC 5321 (2.3.5 and 4.1.4) explicitly state that an address literal can be used after HELO/EHLO. So it's a RFC violation

Re: IP addresses in helo

2019-11-18 Thread Merrick
Hello On 2019/11/18 8:32 下午, @lbutlr wrote: How much legitimate mail do you get with an IP helo? I just saw postfix in my Vps, the default configuration is using IP for Helo command. I use this postfix to send monitor stuff to myself, received in gmail. regards.

Re: IP addresses in helo

2019-11-18 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas
Is it safe (or mostly safe) to simply block attempts to deliver mail with a helo that is only an IP address? (I am talking about only on postfix/stmpd and obviously not on postfix/submit or related). On 18.11.19 13:22, Gregory Heytings wrote: No it is not, it's a RFC violation. The string

Re: IP addresses in helo

2019-11-18 Thread @lbutlr
On 18 Nov 2019, at 05:22, Gregory Heytings wrote: >> Is it safe (or mostly safe) to simply block attempts to deliver mail with a >> helo that is only an IP address? (I am talking about only on postfix/stmpd >> and obviously not on postfix/submit or related). >> > > No it is not, it's a RFC

Re: IP addresses in helo

2019-11-18 Thread Dominic Raferd
On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 at 12:00, @lbutlr wrote: > Is it safe (or mostly safe) to simply block attempts to deliver mail with > a helo that is only an IP address? (I am talking about only on > postfix/stmpd and obviously not on postfix/submit or related). > > I have about 50,000 NOQUEUE reject from

Re: IP addresses in helo

2019-11-18 Thread Gregory Heytings
Hi, Is it safe (or mostly safe) to simply block attempts to deliver mail with a helo that is only an IP address? (I am talking about only on postfix/stmpd and obviously not on postfix/submit or related). No it is not, it's a RFC violation. The string that follows HELO/EHLO is purely

IP addresses in helo

2019-11-18 Thread @lbutlr
Is it safe (or mostly safe) to simply block attempts to deliver mail with a helo that is only an IP address? (I am talking about only on postfix/stmpd and obviously not on postfix/submit or related). I have about 50,000 NOQUEUE reject from "helo=<[193.32.160.151]>" over the last week, for