Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 01:09:23 -0500 (EST) From: walton@digger.net To: Greg Lehey <grog@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: mobile@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Sending mail to FreeBSD.org (was: FreeBSD lockup accessing serial port on Thinkpad) Message-ID: <20011114060923.89146.qmail@aerre.pair.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 13 Nov 2001 10:38:56 +0000, Greg Lehey <grog@FreeBSD.ORG> wrote: > [Format recovered--see http://www.lemis.com/email/email-format.html] > > Your message was all on one line. Yeah, well, that happens when one is forced to send email via a web form to avoid being blocked. > On Saturday, 10 November 2001 at 4:00:01 -0500, walton@digger.net wrote: > > > > Yes, they are definitely more paranoid lately. I'm not seeing the > > problem you describe, but they refuse to accept email from a server > > whose HELO hostname doesn't resolve. > > That's been in place for a long time. I've been able to send without a problem up until very recently. But now I just get things like this: mobile@freebsd.org: smtp;450 <pltn13.pbi.net>: Helo command rejected: Host not found I've tried to contact postmaster@pbi.net, without response. > > Which appears to nicely block all of us unsavory Pacific Bell > > Internet customers... > > Are you trying to send direct, or via PacBell's mail server? I send to mail.pacbell.net (aka mta7.pltn13.pbi.net, mta5.snfc21.pbi.net, mta6.snfc21.pbi.net). From the look of the bounce messages, they are leaving off the hostname and sending just the domain (pltn13.pbi.net or snfc21.pbi.net). Which is good and proper: RFC 821: "HELO <SP> <domain> <CRLF>" (Though it goes on to contradict itself with "The argument field contains the host name of the sender-SMTP", ALL examples given use a domain name.) RFC 1123: "The sender-SMTP MUST ensure that the <domain> parameter in a HELO command is a valid principal host domain name for the client host. [...] The HELO receiver MAY verify that the HELO parameter really corresponds to the IP address of the sender. However, the receiver MUST NOT refuse to accept a message, even if the sender's HELO command fails verification." RFC 2821: "The argument field contains the fully-qualified domain name of the SMTP client if one is available." ...and others. > They may > have policy reasons for requiring the latter. If their mail server > doesn't have reverse DNS, you have a reason for complaint. Their mail servers DO have reverse DNS. As far as I can tell, they are doing nothing wrong. This is, of course, completely off-topic for -mobile, but I'm not sure what the proper forum is. > Given the > fact that a large number of ISPs seem to be staffed with trained > monkeys nowadays, it might not be so easy to find a good alternative. That, or the real workers are hidden behind an impenetrable wall of trained monkeys at the phone banks. Either way, it's just as bad. Dave -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Walton dwalton@acm.org ---------------------------------------------------------------------- . To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-mobile" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20011114060923.89146.qmail>