[Raw Msg Headers][Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Does the EHLO response break RFC2821 syntax?
Paul Overell wrote:
>> 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
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 firstname.lastname@example.org