Re: RFC 5321bis / 2821ter

[Paul Smith <[e-mail]>]

Alex van den Bogaerdt wrote:
>
>> I would argue that 'EHLO
>> mailserver.domain.com' is more useful than 'EHLO [192.168.1.1]' even
>> though the former is incorrect, and the latter correct (according to RFC
>> 5321) with dynamic IP/NAT.
>
> IMHO 192.168.1.1 is not an internet IP address. And that is a
> requirement.
>
I'm sorry, but that can't be the case.

Otherwise, how does Thunderbird send mail to a local mail server on a
private network? It can't, because it hasn't got an Internet host name,
or an Internet IP address, so can't issue a valid EHLO command.
Similarly, how does ANY SMTP client behind a NAT router with dynamic IP
(ie pretty much any home user) send a message anywhere? If what you say
is the case, then that is cutting off half the world from the SMTP network!

As far as I can see RFC 5321 doesn't say it has to be a routable IP
address to be used in an address literal.

As far as I am aware, RFC 4409 doesn't relax the requirements of RFC
2821/5321 for the EHLO parameter, so 'use message submission' is not the
answer.

-- 
Paul Smith

VPOP3 - POP3/SMTP/IMAP4/Webmail Email server for Windows