Re: Does the EHLO response break RFC2821 syntax?

[Paul Overell <paul.overell@thus.net>]

In message <44647C62.5000903@netbauds.net>, Darryl Miles 
<darryl-mailinglists@netbauds.net> writes
>Paul Overell wrote:

>
>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.
>

I agree enhanced status code should not be used in the EHLO response, 
RFC 2034 says in section 3.:


>3.  Framework for the Enhanced Error Statuses Extension
>
>   The enhanced error statuses transport extension is laid out as
>   follows:

[Snip]

> (4)   the text part of all 2xx, 4xx, and 5xx SMTP responses
>         other than the initial greeting and any response to
>         HELO or EHLO are prefaced with a status code as defined
>         in RFC 1893. This status code is always followed by one
>         or more spaces.

And restated in section 4. as

>4.  The Enhanced-Status-Codes service extension
>

[Snip]

>
>   These codes must appear in all 2xx, 4xx, and 5xx response lines 
>other
>   than initial greeting and any response to HELO or EHLO.



Regards
-- 
Paul Overell         Internet Platform Development Manager, Thus plc
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe zmailer" in
the body of a message to majordomo@nic.funet.fi