Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!snorkelwacker!apple!bionet!turbo.bio.net!lear From: lear@turbo.bio.net (Eliot Lear) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip Subject: Re: Host requirements and SMTP Message-ID: Date: 6 Jan 90 01:44:10 GMT References: <24861.631484091@cs.nott.ac.uk> Organization: GenBank Computing Resource for Mol. Biology Lines: 27 RE HR 5.2.3: The goal was to give the option to the system administrator the option of disabling these commands either altogether or for private lists, depending on that particular site's requirements (as stated in DISCUSSION). RE HR 5.2.5: I would agree that HELO has really outlived its usefulness (sendmail doesn't even require it). Were I you, I would check the connecting address and use that instead of HELO to do verifications. In either case, you need to accept the mail involved. On the client side, you would be foolish to implement code that does not issue a HELO, as there are sites out there that will barf with a protocol botch error. RE HR 5.3.3 (I presume, as there is no 5.5.3): I don't understand. In the previous line you say, ``Doamin literals together with source routing should be dropped,'' and then go on to argue the case where you want to use source routing. In either the case where you have MX records, or even if you are dealing with a site that isn't registered, source routes as defined by RFC822 are useless because all the hosts listed have to be registered. -- Eliot Lear [lear@turbo.bio.net]