Date:        Tue, 20 Nov 2001 04:16:55 -0500 (EST)
    From:        der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
    Message-ID:  <200111200916.EAA20543@Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>

  | 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.

That isn't what was intended, nor does there seem to be any rational
justification for that - if you were actually checking that the HELO
arg was correct, actually belonged to the host making the connection,
then there would be arguments that could be made for that, but that's
clearly (any reading at all) what 1123 says not to do.

The intent was that as long as the syntax of the command is OK, mail
connections are not to be rejected.

The kind of behaviour that your server is (apparently) following required
me to add a dummy MX record for my laptop, just so broken mail servers
would allow it to use its name in the HELO (or EHLO) command.   Its address
keeps changing, it often gets stuck behind NAT boxes (which it is now),
I don't expect it to ever receive connections from anywhere, so there's
no point having it in the DNS.   Sure, I could have it send a fake HELO
command, but isn't it better for it to send a real one?

  | Unless DRUMS has something in draft

DRUMS is extinct (well, maybe dormant) and has no drafts.  2821 says
nothing at all in particular about this issue.

kre