Re: [evolution-patches] Use of invalid HELO.

[Jeffrey Stedfast <fejj novell com>]

I honestly just don't care.

On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 00:18 +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 18:53 -0500, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> > better and simpler to just get rid of the whole hostname lookup shit
> > and just always use the ip address and be done with it.
> 
> RFC2821 §4.1.4:
>    The SMTP client MUST, if possible, ensure that the domain parameter
>    to the EHLO command is a valid principal host name (not a CNAME or MX
>    name) for its host.  If this is not possible (e.g., when the client's
>    address is dynamically assigned and the client does not have an
>    obvious name), an address literal SHOULD be substituted for the
>    domain name and supplemental information provided that will assist in
>    identifying the client.
> 
> I'm intrigued by the "supplemental information" which doesn't seem to be
> permitted (at first glance) by the formal grammar. But leaving that
> aside, it seems to be fairly clear that if you have a valid FQDN, you
> should use it.
>