+- ispCP - Board - Support (http://www.isp-control.net/forum)
+-- Forum: ispCP Omega Development Area (/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Suggestions (/forum-2.html)
+--- Thread: Subscribing to this forum didn't work with default ispcp configuration (/thread-3025.html)
Subscribing to this forum didn't work with default ispcp configuration - MrRagga - 04-13-2008 12:36 PM
Hi, I just wanted to register to this forum. As a final step I got a activation email sent, which had been rejected, because there is no reverse lookup for your mail server?
I got this error message in my logs with the default ispcp installation:
NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from http://www.isp-control.net[78.47.219.222]: 504 5.5.2 <ispCP>: Helo command rejected: need fully-qualified hostname; from=<www-data@isp-control.net> to=<myemail@mydomain> proto=ESMTP helo=<ispCP>
I comment reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname from smtpd_helo_restrictions and then it did work. Isn't that a bit weird?
Is this configuration a recommended one or should it better be disabled?
Cheers Jonas
RE: Subscribing to this forum didn't work with default ispcp configuration - zpin - 04-13-2008 07:46 PM
Rather ironic ^^
Anyway, I think those helo restrictions shouldn't be in the default config... There are a lot of mailservers that don't send valid helos.
RE: Subscribing to this forum didn't work with default ispcp configuration - ephigenie - 04-13-2008 08:40 PM
yes i know its just i moved the server and some parts are missing ...
such as this . thanks for the hint. I'll correct that.
RE: Subscribing to this forum didn't work with default ispcp configuration - rbtux - 04-14-2008 12:51 AM
zpin Wrote:Anyway, I think those helo restrictions shouldn't be in the default config... There are a lot of mailservers that don't send valid helos.
The check is OK. The servers are requiered (by RFC) that the helo must be an resolvable fqdn...
RE: Subscribing to this forum didn't work with default ispcp configuration - zpin - 04-14-2008 07:01 AM
that's nice and all, but if half of my friends/relatives can't send me mail anymore rfc can require all it wants, I will deactivate it.
RE: Subscribing to this forum didn't work with default ispcp configuration - joximu - 04-14-2008 07:28 AM
[ot]
@zpin:
Do you also allow "no helo" so it's a little bit easier (faster) for me to send you an email (with telnet for example)?
You always can set the level of standards you support on your server - it's just a question if many smaller server admins have to set the level down just because some big players (or maybe also small players :-) are to lazy or unwilling to configue their mail server to speak the right protocol language.
[/ot]
Just my opinion...
/J
RE: Subscribing to this forum didn't work with default ispcp configuration - zpin - 04-14-2008 07:58 AM
No I don't... All I'm saying is that - while it might not be rfc compilant - a majority of the mailservers don't set their helo correctly. And I've had quite some trouble with emails not reaching me because of that (from various sources). If you think it's reasonable to set the requirements like that by default, I'm ok with it, I can always change it. The question is just if it's the right setting for the standard small scale admin (the big one will hopefully double check every line of his config files).
RE: Subscribing to this forum didn't work with default ispcp configuration - joximu - 04-14-2008 08:16 AM
Well - I also have mails that are rejected because of a non fqdn helo, but a short view about them tells me that it's only spam (> 200 and about 140 of regular mails that passed policyd - server is not very "loaded"). So, for me this is a first Spam filter.
I think most of the important/regular mail servers *do* send a fqdn helo.
RE: Subscribing to this forum didn't work with default ispcp configuration - RatS - 04-14-2008 08:34 AM
even t-online (biggest german provider) won't.
RE: Subscribing to this forum didn't work with default ispcp configuration - zpin - 04-15-2008 07:31 PM
I guess several other big providers don't either...
I've searched through the rfc a bit, I think it's not very specific about the helo having to be a fqdn. Might be interpreted differently...
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc0821.txt