Re: Initial stab at a proposal document

Hadmut Danisch wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 12:41:29PM -0400, Alan DeKok wrote:
> >   I've put an inital proposal document on the web at:
> >
> > http://www.striker.ottawa.on.ca/~aland/asrg-rmx/proposal.html
> >
> >   So far, it's most comments on the generic problem statement, scope,
> > and limitations.  Design specifics have been intentionally left out.
> 
> Some details:
...
> 
> Section HELLO:
> 
>   I still do not see where's the sense in testing the HELO/EHLO
>   argument if a sender address was given. I still propose to
>   check only the envelope sender address and to use the EHLO parameter
>   only if the sender address was empty.

The sense in checking the HELO parameter is that the domain owner may or
may not wish to be identified with a relay host (IP). It is useful
information that can be used in the delivery process OR non-delivery
process.

> 
...
> 
>   OK, after reading to the end I see that HELO/EHLO might help in
>   relaying, while I still prefer to fix relaying instead of checking
>   EHLO/HELO.

How do you propose to fix relaying?

> 
...
> 
>   Proposal: Do not check EHLO if sender address was given by default.
>   New RMX entry "EHLO:" gives permission to check EHLO if sender
>   address check failed.

A HELO parameter with a domain name can provide useful information from
the domain owner. Why do you insist on throwing it away? It is an
independent check.


Raymond S Brand