I mean: MX => the HELO should be have a MX <- paranoit = => the HELO should be the same as the reverse of the mailserver <- paranoit
Some guys are use such features.. And these are in postfix and qmail-sppamcontrol too.. Maybe we should make the enforcedHELO also be configurable. MAybe some guys don't want to check if HELO was provided.. bye Ps: Thx for the Service. Am Dienstag, den 11.04.2006, 11:50 +0200 schrieb Stefano Bagnara: > Norman Maurer wrote: > > Hi, > > i wrote the MAIL FROM Domain has valid MX Check. I was using javadns.. > > Now i want to do some new checks for EHLO/EHLO too (MX,FQDN = > > HELO/EHLO). So i need to import the DNSJAVA packages again. Is there a > > problem with change the findMXRecordsRaw(String hostname) to a static > > method ? Or should i create a new Static one with the Code is used in > > MAIL FROM check and include it in DNSServer ? > > I just applied a patch to MailCmdServer: look at it in order to use > dnsServer services. > > We could add new services to DNSServer interface if needed. > > I don't understand the check you want to add to EHLO/HELO: what does > "MX, FQDN = HELO/EHLO" means? Do you mean that the helo host should be > equals to the mx of the sender domain? Is this an RFC rule / common > behaviour? > > Stefano > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > !EXCUBATOR:1,443b7c5937022016219740!
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
