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

Keith Moore <> Sun, 04 October 2020 18:28 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48B933A099F for <>; Sun, 4 Oct 2020 11:28:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.109
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.109 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.213, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 275OOSltsED9 for <>; Sun, 4 Oct 2020 11:28:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4416D3A0954 for <>; Sun, 4 Oct 2020 11:28:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal []) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D6666F4 for <>; Sun, 4 Oct 2020 14:28:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 04 Oct 2020 14:28:34 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=H1MSi+pb5yMITSkxltbDeChmtlbQkPikS6Vmnqttb b4=; b=fubC7XW7+ZBnmStYkhCaVCdu3JinhE6JRZRY+4o9KgmO91ELD5Qcbjv2Z zWDScEtdQzKM7WPqc468no2LALTb0rSh+eIFtxQXCtmZr4xr/BZY8lZ/w3qt28Sv TF0SwqMewVWPHWWkYXfzF6VNtRGFrRTqP2vBY3i/s8GquWBGZkPJvJTgFb0mbQPs cG47dK6o+vL5xgzRchWSFrXrvxY1eECZFZqgxLChy1+MRkOYsQ1HP9dS/GctireA kCX17kTLoZplVdFglgDcCEpJ2rtPpxZzjuPDS1NYLmXfWkx5OCi4ZtY7x38rFLq/ 61Z7ijJqIalEsB8MsuS8mXZ7sAOZw==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:TxR6X4tPQaLMOfuqX5Db2TDe7wd2iuhHWtxk2RGJSaTklYLu-OQRZQ> <xme:TxR6X1fcX-kRUja0cR_Nf59GSolujns3xMdfBTLtQ6Tfwi5t4t-_Sec66mYcz6cz3 ZsQBvbi8tZUKw>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedujedrgedtgdduvdelucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefuvfhfhffkffgfgggjtgfgsehtke ertddtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpefmvghithhhucfoohhorhgvuceomhhoohhrvgesnhgvthif ohhrkhdqhhgvrhgvthhitghsrdgtohhmqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeehhfeutdehfe fgfefghfekhefguefgieduueegjeekfeelleeuieffteefueduueenucfkphepuddtkedr vddvuddrudektddrudehnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrg hilhhfrhhomhepmhhoohhrvgesnhgvthifohhrkhdqhhgvrhgvthhitghsrdgtohhm
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:TxR6XzxTWwcInK96Vj0wThwSwPww2lKEVMEyuqr9lRmz4jaMXWTbGw> <xmx:TxR6X7PE3TZVxZcQ0bM6yiF8EheK50yp8JirdSgTdiAncFr9xFFphA> <xmx:TxR6X49WbWaeVAXf8Oc9mk54bThx7FOUlcTcOQb5_XBvvMk1x8TtMQ> <xmx:URR6X6cnqf8q7cb392D0UAZUDw_Y5QfYea0IGWQswzvikAHzDlejVg>
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPA id C68BE3064674 for <>; Sun, 4 Oct 2020 14:28:31 -0400 (EDT)
References: <20200928221602.046CE22A35B3@ary.qy> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Keith Moore <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2020 14:28:31 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requirement in RFC 5321
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of issues related to Simple Mail Transfer Protocol \(SMTP\) \[RFC 821, RFC 2821, RFC 5321\]" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 04 Oct 2020 18:28:36 -0000

On 10/4/20 2:19 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:

> In the United States, it is common for people to operates with an 
> expectation that going faster than the speed limit is safe, up to 5 or 
> 10 miles per hour.  In practical terms, this convention is 
> well-established.  Go find it documented.

It's easy to find documentation about how highways are engineered to 
permit safe operation at certain speeds (slightly greater than statutory 
speed limits), also taking into account road conditions, traffic volume, 
etc.   The "expectation" you refer to is not merely an informal 
convention, it's a result of explicit design.

But I'm not your trained monkey, and I'm not bound to jump through 
whatever arbitrary hoops you hold up,so you can Google that for 
yourself.   I suspect that you don't actually care, you're just trying 
to insult me again.

And congratulations, you have once again tried to divert the list away 
from its scope of Internet email issues, for what purpose I can only guess.