Re: SPF's helo identity as a reporting target

On 12-05-13 05:58 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> On Sun 13/May/2012 11:07:45 +0200 Chris Lewis wrote:
>> On 12-05-12 03:59 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>>> This probably belongs to ASRG, not only because MARF has finished, but
>>> also because a *Taxonomy of reporting targets* should be hosted
>>> somewhere, and I'm unable to think of a better place than this list's
>>> wiki.
>>>
>>> Opinions?
>>
>> It would be nice if it could be made usable.
>>
>> This would tend to make a large organization having all of their servers
>> helo exactly the same way, which flies in the face of industry BCP (eg:
>> MAAWG), and even if it wasn't specifically RFC5321-illegal, clearly
>> violates its intent.
> 
> I see nothing wrong if an organization uses the same helo name for all
> its mailouts.  A helo name does not have to be a label of any DNS
> record. 

Uh what?

RFC5321:

Section 4.1.1.1:

   These commands are used to identify the SMTP client to the SMTP
   server.  The argument clause contains the fully-qualified domain name
   of the SMTP client, if one is available.  In situations in which the
   SMTP client system does not have a meaningful domain name (e.g., when
   its address is dynamically allocated and no reverse mapping record is
   available), the client SHOULD send an address literal (see
   Section 4.1.3).

   ...

   The SMTP server identifies itself to the SMTP client in the
   connection greeting reply and in the response to this command.

Yeah, I suppose you could make all your outbounds have the same name (up
to whatever limit DNS imposes), but clearly this violates the intent.

And it's also very explicitly counter to industry practises/BCP.