IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: RFC 5321bis / 2821ter

Hector Santos <hsantos@santronics.com> Tue, 27 January 2009 20:36 UTC

Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n0RKaqTN000328 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 27 Jan 2009 13:36:52 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-smtp@mail.imc.org)
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id n0RKaqa0000327; Tue, 27 Jan 2009 13:36:52 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-smtp@mail.imc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-smtp@mail.imc.org using -f
Received: from winserver.com (catinthebox.net [208.247.131.9]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n0RKaoeS000303 for <ietf-smtp@imc.org>; Tue, 27 Jan 2009 13:36:50 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from hsantos@santronics.com)
Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v6.3.452.5) for ietf-smtp@imc.org; Tue, 27 Jan 2009 15:37:22 -0500
Received: from hdev1 ([65.10.45.22]) by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v6.3.452.5) with ESMTP id 2574465000; Tue, 27 Jan 2009 15:37:21 -0500
Message-ID: <497F7058.90109@santronics.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 15:36:40 -0500
From: Hector Santos <hsantos@santronics.com>
Organization: Santronics Software, Inc.
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Paul Smith <paul@pscs.co.uk>
CC: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>, ietf-smtp@imc.org
Subject: Re: RFC 5321bis / 2821ter
References: <4979D903.1060705@pscs.co.uk> <E5EF288BD222F5BA20C735BD@PST.JCK.COM> <497980AA.2060706@es2eng.com> <C4ZHRHThnSMjwwDOZ03z0w.md5@lochnagar.oryx.com> <4979B5F2.9010102@pscs.co.uk> <WBwvOp9JIdw2SWc1HYscRg.md5@lochnagar.oryx.com> <4979D903.1060705@pscs.co.uk> <5.2.1.1.0.20090123140212.03ed3fb0@plus.pop.mail.yahoo.com> <51104ACCD26E8167A1B3981E@PST.JCK.COM> <497D8756.5030306@pscs.co.uk> <alpine.LSU.2.00.0901261913140.4795@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk> <497ED51D.9040407@pscs.co.uk> <497EE0EA.6080704@tana.it> <497EEB01.8060300@pscs.co.uk> <497F41FB.7060101@tana.it> <497F4765.6070109@pscs.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <497F4765.6070109@pscs.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-ietf-smtp@mail.imc.org
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-smtp/mail-archive/>
List-ID: <ietf-smtp.imc.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-smtp-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>

Paul Smith wrote:

> Not sure I understand that.
> 
> It is totally valid to do:
> 
> EHLO mail.spammer.com
> MAIL FROM:<me@mycompany.com>
> 
> The EHLO name bears no resemblance to the sender's email address. Doing
> an SPF on the EHLO name is pointless, as all that tells you is that the
> sending host is 'mail.spammer.com'. 

hmmmmm,  if an incoming client issues

    EHLO mail.winserver.com

which is our domain and its not part of our IP network, its a clear 
LMAP DOMAIN::IP violation, thus rejectable with 100% no false 
positions (or true negatives depending on your POV).

I would hope other remote systems would help themselves by using the 
expose information we provide for client machine::IP associations.



-- 
Sincerely

Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email