Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.mail.headers > #4 > unrolled thread

Would your SMTP server accept -> ehlo MAPI1.0 ???

Back to article view | Back to comp.mail.headers

Contents

  Would your SMTP server accept -> ehlo MAPI1.0   ??? Mail Man <Mail@Man.com> - 2012-10-12 19:53 -0400
    Re: Would your SMTP server accept -> ehlo MAPI1.0   ??? Solbu <solbu@solbu.net.ugyldig> - 2012-10-27 03:31 +0200
      Re: Would your SMTP server accept -> ehlo MAPI1.0   ??? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-10-27 18:06 +0000
        Re: Would your SMTP server accept -> ehlo MAPI1.0   ??? Mail Man <Mail@Man.com> - 2012-10-27 20:14 -0400
          Re: Would your SMTP server accept -> ehlo MAPI1.0   ??? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201210.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-10-28 14:07 +0100
            Re: Would your SMTP server accept -> ehlo MAPI1.0   ??? Mail Man <Mail@Man.com> - 2012-10-28 12:35 -0400
              Re: Would your SMTP server accept -> ehlo MAPI1.0   ??? Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2012-10-28 20:49 +0000
          Re: Would your SMTP server accept -> ehlo MAPI1.0   ??? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-10-29 22:08 +0000
    Re: Would your SMTP server accept -> ehlo MAPI1.0   ??? Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2012-10-28 22:17 -0400

#4 — Would your SMTP server accept -> ehlo MAPI1.0 ???

Recently I've been trying to figure out why a Trendnet TV-IP110w
IP-camera was not able to connect to my SMTP server to send mail.

I performed some packet analysis and found that the camera was greeting
the server with this:

  ehlo MAPI1.0

And my server responds with this:

  501 Invalid domain syntax

In looking at the ehlo specifications, the greeting is supposed to
contain something that looks like a domain-name.  So I believe the
string "MAPI1.0" is being rejected by my server on that basis.

When I redirect the camera to use my ISP's out-bound MTA server, it
apparently accepts the ehlo and the email is delivered correctly.  In
doing so, I see this in the header generated by the camera:

   X-Status: Alpha
   X-Mailer: Fitivision Mail API V1.0

I've updated the camera's firmware, but it doesn't change the ehlo
string.

The firmware file is in the format .pck and seems to require unpacking
and re-engineering on a linux machine (which I'm unfamiliar with).  My
intention would have been to replace the MAPI1.0 string with something
more acceptible to my server.

In posting this, I just wanted to document this issue (I have seen
others mention SMTP problems with this camera in other forums) and I
wanted to know why the firmware programmers would have used this string
for their ehlo greeting - and would it be compatible with some (or many,
or most) SMTP servers in current operation.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#5

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Mail Man sent the following transmission through subspace:

> I wanted to know why the firmware programmers would have used this string
> for their ehlo greeting

They use it because more and more SMTP servers require a HELO/EHLO
greeting before they accept any email. The spammers do the same.
Their SMTP relay bots also use HELO/EHLO, and they usually use whatever
hostname the infected computer uses.

> would it be compatible with some (or many, 
> or most) SMTP servers in current operation.

Any HELO/EHLO string is accepted by any SMTP server. But many servers
are also configured to require the string to resolve to a domain name.
So the server doesn't care what the string is, as long as it resolves 
to an A, AAAA or MX record. ISPs oftens have their own network as an
exception to the requirement, so their users can send email.

- -- 
Solbu - http://www.solbu.net
Remove '.ugyldig' for email
PGP key ID: 0xFA687324
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFQizl9T1rWTfpocyQRAoz5AJ0ZXGPUYcYF5HViiYyjF6nYX43HOwCg/gpG
hQbSHkyPf8JPQbaWPeNppok=
=UzYD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.mail.misc.]

On Sat, 2012-10-27, Solbu wrote:
>
> Mail Man sent the following transmission through subspace:
>
>> I wanted to know why the firmware programmers would have used this string
>> for their ehlo greeting
>
> They use it because more and more SMTP servers require a HELO/EHLO
> greeting before they accept any email.

Huh?  HELO has been mandatory with SMTP since the 1980s. There may be
servers which are "permissive in what they accept" and continue
without it, but if you're writing a client, why take the chance?

/Jorgen

-- 
  // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@  Oo  o.   .     .
\X/     snipabacken.se>   O  o   .

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7

Jorgen Grahn wrote:

> On Sat, 2012-10-27, Solbu wrote:

> >> I wanted to know why the firmware programmers would have used
> >> this string for their ehlo greeting
> >
> > They use it because more and more SMTP servers require a
> > HELO/EHLO greeting before they accept any email.
> 
> Huh?  HELO has been mandatory with SMTP since the 1980s.

You both missed the entire point of my original question.

So I will repeat it. 

===========
Recently I've been trying to figure out why a Trendnet TV-IP110w
IP-camera was not able to connect to my SMTP server to send mail.

I performed some packet analysis and found that the camera was greeting
the server with this:

  ehlo MAPI1.0

And my server responds with this:

  501 Invalid domain syntax

In looking at the ehlo specifications, the greeting is supposed to
contain something that looks like a domain-name.  So I believe the
string "MAPI1.0" is being rejected by my server on that basis.
============

So you see, it's not that this camera wasn't generating a "ehlo"
greeting.

The issue is the "MAPI1.0" part of the ehlo greeting that my SMTP server
apparently doesn't like, and it doesn't seem to like it because
according to SMTP standards "MAPI1.0" is not a valid domain-name.

Comments?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8

Mail Man <Mail@Man.com> wrote:

> Jorgen Grahn wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, 2012-10-27, Solbu wrote:
> 
> > >> I wanted to know why the firmware programmers would have used
> > >> this string for their ehlo greeting
> > >
> > > They use it because more and more SMTP servers require a
> > > HELO/EHLO greeting before they accept any email.
> > 
> > Huh?  HELO has been mandatory with SMTP since the 1980s.
> 
> You both missed the entire point of my original question.
> 
> So I will repeat it. 
> 
> ===========
> Recently I've been trying to figure out why a Trendnet TV-IP110w
> IP-camera was not able to connect to my SMTP server to send mail.
> 
> I performed some packet analysis and found that the camera was greeting
> the server with this:
> 
>   ehlo MAPI1.0
> 
> And my server responds with this:
> 
>   501 Invalid domain syntax
> 
> In looking at the ehlo specifications, the greeting is supposed to
> contain something that looks like a domain-name.  So I believe the
> string "MAPI1.0" is being rejected by my server on that basis.
> ============
> 
> So you see, it's not that this camera wasn't generating a "ehlo"
> greeting.
> 
> The issue is the "MAPI1.0" part of the ehlo greeting that my SMTP server
> apparently doesn't like, and it doesn't seem to like it because
> according to SMTP standards "MAPI1.0" is not a valid domain-name.
> 
> Comments?

Yes, you're a lamer.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9

Fritz Wuehler wrote:
 
> > The issue is the "MAPI1.0" part of the ehlo greeting that my SMTP
> > server apparently doesn't like, and it doesn't seem to like it
> > because according to SMTP standards "MAPI1.0" is not a valid
> > domain-name.
> >
> > Comments?
> 
> Yes, you're a lamer.

What's your fucking problem?

If this is all over your head, then don't be an ass and try to respond
to it.

Apparently nobody else here can respond coherently about this.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10

Mail Man <Mail@Man.com> wrote:

> Fritz Wuehler wrote:
>  
> > > The issue is the "MAPI1.0" part of the ehlo greeting that my SMTP
> > > server apparently doesn't like, and it doesn't seem to like it
> > > because according to SMTP standards "MAPI1.0" is not a valid
> > > domain-name.
> > >
> > > Comments?
> > 
> > Yes, you're a lamer.
> 
> What's your fucking problem?

Your problem is you're a lamer, an idiot, and a stupid sonofabitch. You
can't figure out obvious stuff and you constantly make lame comments on this
newsgroup. Maybe you ought to encrypt your fictitious domain name and then
it will work. Does MAPI1.0 look like a valid domain name to you, lamer?
> 
> If this is all over your head, then don't be an ass and try to respond
> to it.

You need a long beating with a big fucking cluestick! Come out behind the
barn and we'll see what we can do for ya, lamer!

> 
> Apparently nobody else here can respond coherently about this.

You're a lamer, and that's the /only/ problem I see here. Everybody else
here knows what the answer is but I am the only one with a minute free to
kick your teeth in, lamer!

POW!! BOP!! BIFF!! BAM!!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12

[Followup set -- again.]

On Sun, 2012-10-28, Mail Man wrote:
> Jorgen Grahn wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 2012-10-27, Solbu wrote:
>
>> >> I wanted to know why the firmware programmers would have used
>> >> this string for their ehlo greeting
>> >
>> > They use it because more and more SMTP servers require a
>> > HELO/EHLO greeting before they accept any email.
>> 
>> Huh?  HELO has been mandatory with SMTP since the 1980s.
>
> You both missed the entire point of my original question.

No I didn't. I *ignored* your question, and commented on what Solbu
wrote.

/Jorgen

-- 
  // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@  Oo  o.   .     .
\X/     snipabacken.se>   O  o   .

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11

In article <5078AD79.AADEC93F@Man.com>, Mail Man <Mail@Man.com> wrote:

> Recently I've been trying to figure out why a Trendnet TV-IP110w
> IP-camera was not able to connect to my SMTP server to send mail.
> 
> I performed some packet analysis and found that the camera was greeting
> the server with this:
> 
>   ehlo MAPI1.0
> 
> And my server responds with this:
> 
>   501 Invalid domain syntax
> 
> In looking at the ehlo specifications, the greeting is supposed to
> contain something that looks like a domain-name.  So I believe the
> string "MAPI1.0" is being rejected by my server on that basis.
> 
> When I redirect the camera to use my ISP's out-bound MTA server, it
> apparently accepts the ehlo and the email is delivered correctly.  In
> doing so, I see this in the header generated by the camera:
> 
>    X-Status: Alpha
>    X-Mailer: Fitivision Mail API V1.0
> 
> I've updated the camera's firmware, but it doesn't change the ehlo
> string.

Most mail clients often don't have a domain of their own to put in the 
EHLO message. That part of the protocol was designed with the 
expectation that SMTP connections would all be between MTAs. It wasn't 
until many years later that PCs started running mail clients that used 
SMTP to submit mail through a relay.

I checked what Mac Mail does, it sends

EHLO [192.168.3.99]

i.e. the machine's local IP. As you can see, the value of this string is 
nonexistent when the connection is between a mail client and its message 
submission server.

Why do you have your SMTP server configured to check this for local 
clients? It's reasonable to check it for incoming mail from other MTAs, 
as an anti-spam measure, but what are you gaining when you check it on 
authenticated clients?

-- 
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.mail.headers

csiph-web