David F. Skoll wrote:
Hector Santos wrote:
You are correct. Exim is broken!! <g> but I guess will correct that to
make it unbroken by changing the specification.
Why do you contend that it is broken? Seriously, if you're going to
claim that an implementation is broken, you have to point to something in
the RFC that the implementation violates (a MUST or a MUST NOT).
The ABNF says:
Reply-line = Reply-code [ SP text ] CRLF
it does not say:
Reply-line = Reply-code [ SP | "-" text ] CRLF
nor does it say:
Reply-line = Reply-code
Now of course, if you are going kludge an endorsement by changing the
Reply-line = *( Reply-code "-" [ text ] CRLF ) /
Reply-code [ SP text ] CRLF
Reply-code = %x31-35 %x30-35 %x30-39
in order to make BROKEN behavior officially compliant in 2821bis, then
hey, more power to you.
Unless you can point to something that says an implementation MUST NOT
use the reply code in the first line of a multiline reply,
stop claiming that Exim or Qmail are broken because they use the first
I understand the truth something does hurt. Its BROKEN CODE - PERIOD!