See http://pobox.com/~djb/surveys/smtpextensions.txt. You missed ONEX,
VERB, and VRFY. There are also lots of X extensions that should be
documented.
RFC1869 seems to indicate that VRFY is required and thus doesn't need
to be advertised in an EHLO response.
CAPABILITIES|draft-ietf-fax-smtp-capabilities|Finding out server capabilities
I continue to be amazed at this proposal. Previous commentary:
: CAPS has surpassed ETRN in the ``Most absurd use of port 25'' contest.
That's an honor. :-)
: Has anyone informed the authors that store-and-forward mail systems do
: not provide an online end-to-end link from the receiver to the sender?
Yep, I'm aware of that.
: Why would anyone even imagine putting this feature into SMTP? Is there
: something wrong with today's public-information retrieval protocols? I
: realize that ftpd and fingerd don't have enough hooks, but why not use
: httpd?
We will likely drop the proposal anyways in favor of
draft-ietf-fax-mdn-features-01.txt, anyways, but if you're honestly
interested in a justification for draft-ietf-fax-smtp-capabilities I
can give you several.
-Dan Wing