Re: SPF's helo identity as a reporting target

On Sun 13/May/2012 18:59:23 +0200 Chris Lewis wrote:
> On 12-05-13 05:58 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>> On Sun 13/May/2012 11:07:45 +0200 Chris Lewis wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.

This has been discussed so many times that we don't need to do it once
more.  For one (John Klensin on Jan 2009):

  The 1123-imposed requirement (carried forward into Section 4.1.4
  Paragraph 6 of 5321) that messages not be rejected on the basis
  of a validation failure with the EHLO argument would presumably
  remain even if we deprecated 821 and client use of HELO.
  http://www.imc.org/ietf-smtp/mail-archive/msg05420.html

> 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.

I'd agree that violating intents and/or practices is not a good start.
That seems to imply that it is necessary to use scripts to keep helo
names, IP addresses, and SPF in sync.  Would that be worth?