Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requirement in RFC 5321

[Sam Varshavchik <[e-mail]>]

John C Klensin writes:

> regional registries.  Independent of clients who are part of
> clouds and business arrangements large enough to push ISPs
> around, many ISPs refuse to create reverse mapping records at
> all [1] or will not create ones that that match client
> perceptions of their names rather than server-location based
> names following the ITU model [2]/
>
> [1] As handy examples pulled from this thread, 68.166.206.83 and
> 64.147.123.25 apparently have no reverse mapping records at all.

;; ANSWER SECTION:
83.206.166.68.in-addr.arpa. 4156 IN	PTR	mailx.courier-mta.com.

;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
166.68.in-addr.arpa.	71418	IN	NS	ns3.gtt.net.
166.68.in-addr.arpa.	71418	IN	NS	ns2.gtt.net.
166.68.in-addr.arpa.	71418	IN	NS	ns1.gtt.net.

The somewhat cumbersome https://mxtoolbox.com/ReverseLookup.aspx verified  
that it's not just the little bubble of the Intertubes that I live in can  
see this reverse mapping.

Anyway, the only point I made is that I believe that the MUST NOT, when it  
comes to EHLO/HELO validation, is frequently ignored in practice. Those who  
are of the opinion that validation is bad practice, nobody will force them  
to do it. And those who do believe that it filters out a bunch of crap will  
do it; they will ignore the MUST NOT. That's it.