----- Original Message -----
From: "John C Klensin" <john(_at_)jck(_dot_)com>
To: <Valdis(_dot_)Kletnieks(_at_)vt(_dot_)edu>; "B. Johannessen"
<bob(_at_)db(_dot_)org>;
<ietf-smtp(_at_)imc(_dot_)org>
Sent: Friday, January 02, 2004 5:41 PM
Subject: Re: RFC2821, section 4.1.1.1 and HELO/EHLO
Is that what is wanted, or should the ABNF be
Domain = ( (sub-domain 1*("." sub-domain)) /
address-literal ) [ string ]
Will this not conflict with other ABNFs requiring an domain specification,
such as MAIL FROM?
"MAIL FROM:" ("<>" / Reverse-Path)
[SP Mail-parameters] CRLF
Reverse-path = Path
Forward-path = Path
Path = "<" [ A-d-l ":" ] Mailbox ">"
A-d-l = At-domain *( "," A-d-l )
; Note that this form, the so-called "source route",
; MUST BE accepted, SHOULD NOT be generated, and SHOULD be
; ignored.
At-domain = "@" domain
examples:
mail from: <joe(_at_)example(_dot_)com>
mail from: <joe(_at_)[X(_dot_)X(_dot_)X(_dot_)X] see contact xyx>
Syntaxtically, it is correct but I question which software expects something
like this to perform the proper parsing. Honestly, this is something we
would have to change in our own server to honor the optional [string] in a
possible domain literal reverse-path.
My input would be:
Since it is only meant to help in the logging/tracking on the helo/ehlo
domain literal and for maximum backward compatibility, do not have the
[string] element in the domain ABNF, and If possible, to be clear and
specific, add a new "machine-domain" ABNF:
helo = "HELO" SP Domain CRLF
ehlo = "EHLO" SP Machine-Domain CRLF
Machine-Domain = domain [ string ]
This way, there would be no confusion with other ABNF specifications
requiring the domain element.
--
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com