[Top] [All Lists]

Re: RFC2821, section and HELO/EHLO

2004-01-02 16:41:16

On Fri, 2004-01-02 at 22:41, John C Klensin wrote:
"B. Johannessen" <bob(_at_)db(_dot_)org> wrote:
I'd say it's section that's b0rked. If you allow free
form "information" after the FQDN/address-literal it makes it
impossible to parse (ESMTP) parameters for EHLO.
capability list makes sense.  There has never been any model for 
the client to announce anything to the server at EHLO time, nor 
to put any ESMTP parameters there.

Just re-read the relevant part of 2821 (2.2.2 Definition and
Registration of Extensions), and you are of course correct. For
some reason I had the idea that (SMTP) extensions where allowed
to define parameters for EHLO as well. Must have been the 3rd
item in the requirements that got me confused:

- the syntax and possible values of parameters associated with
  the EHLO keyword value;

But on the other hand (and probably part of the reason I got it
wrong in the first place) wouldn't it have been useful, in some
cases, to allow parameters for EHLO? Or to put it another way,
was there any good reasons *not* to allow parameters for EHLO?


-=[ B. Johannessen | bob(_at_)db(_dot_)org -=- | +4797152009 ]=-
-=[ Mail & Spam - News, Drafts & Standards - ]=-