Re: Does the EHLO response break RFC2821 syntax?

[Darryl Miles <darryl-mailinglists@netbauds.net>]

Paul Overell wrote:
>> ehlo
>> 250-Invalid `ehlo' parameter!
>> 250-5.7.1 Sorry [127.0.0.1], Err: RFC821: No input
>> 250-localhost expected "EHLO localhost"
> 
> None of the three error message lines above conform to the ehlo-line 
> syntax, a breach of RFC2821.
> 
> Surely, if ZMailer wishes to return an error message in this case then 
> shouldn't it be contained in the ehlo-greet part of the response, and 
> not in an ehlo-line?

I would agree.


If the lack of argument to EHLO does not really cause a Zmailer a 
problem (hence the 250 code) and it just gets on with it.  Then maybe 
just the:

250-localhost expected "EHLO localhost"

would be perfect.  The other two lines seem like unnecessary noise that 
should not cause harm to a strict client.


What does the spec say about the ENHANCEDSTATUSCODES part which I 
believe is what the "5.7.1" part is.  When should they start being used, 
  I would presume after the EHLO response, since until that point the 
client doesn't know the server supports them yet.

Darryl L. Miles

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe zmailer" in
the body of a message to majordomo@nic.funet.fi