tobold.org

correct • elegant • free

△ comp.mail.* △

◅ Sendmail 8.6.4 and $g

sendmail.cf translator ▻

sender authentification

In article <CJxIGo.8BK@sovam.com>, Igor V. Semenyuk <iga@sovam.com>
quotes part of section 5.2.5 of RFC 1123 and asks:
>I ask because I have seen a few hosts (all running PP as MTA)
>refusing to accept messages from our system.

I have strenuously argued on various mailing lists that this is bogus
behaviour and---despite the claims of confused people---the existence
or otherwise of a correct in-addr.arpa mapping for the sender-SMTP has
nothing whatsoever to do with the ability of the receiver-SMTP to return
a bounce in the case of a delivery problem.

To no avail.

I'm afraid RFC 1123 is no help here, since PP rejects the SMTP
connection attempt (`421 <domain>: PP cannot resolve your address') even
before the HELO command.

The good news is that this is only the default behaviour: it is
optional, and you should ask the administrators of the broken systems to
add

    ininfo=sloppy

to the definition of the SMTP channel in their pptailor file.  (I also
object to the use of such a pejorative term to turn off this bogosity.)

Nothing much to do with sendmail any more; followups to comp.mail.misc.

Tim.
--
Tim Goodwin | "scanf()... usually does something almost but not
PIPEX Ltd   | completely unlike what you want" -- Chris Torek.

Original headers:

From: tim@pipex.net (Tim Goodwin)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.sendmail,comp.mail.misc
Subject: Re: sender authentification
Followup-To: comp.mail.misc
Date: 24 Jan 1994 13:31:32 -0000
Organization: PIPEX Ltd, Cambridge, UK.
Message-ID: <2i0ijk$73l@tank.pipex.net>
References: <CJxIGo.8BK@sovam.com>

△ comp.mail.* △

◅ Sendmail 8.6.4 and $g

sendmail.cf translator ▻