>> [a mailserver] is sending a nonexistent name in its EHLO/HELO.

> See rfc1123 section 5.2.5 ...

>          The HELO receiver MAY verify that the HELO parameter really
>          corresponds to the IP address of the sender.  However, the
>          receiver MUST NOT refuse to accept a message, even if the
>          sender's HELO command fails verification.

> Sounds as if your mail server is broken.

As I read it, the "verification" that MUST NOT is talking about is the
verification the previous sentence mentions, and that's a check I don't
do - and thus that's a MUST NOT I am not in violation of.  Your HELO
can claim you are any existing host on the net, and I won't mind - but
claim a nonexistent (or nonsyntactic) name and I'll refuse it.

Unless DRUMS has something in draft that clarifies that the MUST NOT is
to be read as you imply it should, in which case I'd much appreciate a
pointer....

					der Mouse