From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Apr 20 09:29:19 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A21B716A4CE for ; Tue, 20 Apr 2004 09:29:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtpout.mac.com (A17-250-248-85.apple.com [17.250.248.85]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80F3043D48 for ; Tue, 20 Apr 2004 09:29:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from cswiger@mac.com) Received: from mac.com (smtpin01-en2 [10.13.10.146]) by smtpout.mac.com (Xserve/MantshX 2.0) with ESMTP id i3KGTIaA022963; Tue, 20 Apr 2004 09:29:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.1.1.193] (nfw2.codefab.com [199.103.21.225] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0)i3KGTHgQ018038; Tue, 20 Apr 2004 09:29:18 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20040420133359.GA22776@lb.tenfour> References: <20040420034619.53286.qmail@web40302.mail.yahoo.com> <408509B4.10001@potentialtech.com> <20040420133359.GA22776@lb.tenfour> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v613) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Charles Swiger Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 12:29:11 -0400 To: Dick Davies X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.613) cc: FreeBSD Questions Subject: Re: Help - where to report posting problem X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 16:29:19 -0000 On Apr 20, 2004, at 9:33 AM, Dick Davies wrote: >> Looks like the 4th bullet point applies here. Whoever admins >> that mail server needs to fix the config so it uses a real >> host/domain name in the HELO command, not "popimap02.icare.priv" > > You shouldn't be dumping mails based on the contents of HELO though, > should > you? According to the RFCs, no. But then, at one point not long ago, every mail server was an open relay, and would accept and forward mail sent by anyone to anyone, which was also what the RFCs specified. The majority of attempted network connections are malicious nowadays, thanks to spammers and viruses, which makes strict RFC compliance undesirable... -- -Chuck