Re: HELO vs. MAIL FROM

Hadmut Danisch wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 02:18:43PM -0400, Raymond S Brand wrote:
> >
> > The common feature in all of the proposals is that the domain owner indicates
> > what is authorized and the receiving MTAs/relays do whatever enforcement they
> > choose.
> 
> I think we're coming closer to a common result. :-)
> 
> So our task is mainly to add two informations to the
> mail:
> 
> - Did the EHLO/HELO  RMX check verify? (Yes, No, Unknown, Unavail)
> - Did the SENDER check verify? (Yes, No, Unknown, Unavail)
> 
> and then leave it to the mail configuration what to do with it.
> We _must_ define standard headers to be inserted into the mail.
> MTAs doing a check should record the result also in the Received:
> line.

I disagree, these proposals provide information to the MTA. The MTA
decides what to do with that information. Adding the information to
the message as headers is an MTA issue.

The addition of the lookup results to the message as additional
headers may make a nice appendix but I'd prefer it not be in the
document.

> Two more questions:
> 
> - Should we give the domain owner a decision whether to accept
>   both HELO and SENDER or SENDER only? Or should we give the
>   domain owner just a tool to authorize in common and it is
>   only the receiving MTAs decision whether to apply this to
>   HELO and/or SENDER?

Just like organism sin a laboratory, the receiving MTAs will do as
they damn well please anyway.

> - Proposal: If the receiving MTA rejects the message for whatever
>   reason, do we require it to give a detailed error message giving
>   the exact reason for denial, thus allowing a good sender to fix the
>   problem?

It would be nice but see my previous comment on receiving MTAs.


Raymond S Brand