[Top] [All Lists]

Re: RFC2821, section and HELO/EHLO

2004-01-03 09:49:44

On Sat, 2004-01-03 at 15:25, John C Klensin wrote:
"B. Johannessen" <bob(_at_)db(_dot_)org> wrote:
- the syntax and possible values of parameters associated with
  the EHLO keyword value;

Better phrasing would be welcomed, but that really refers to the 
use of the permitted extensions in other commands.

The phrasing is just fine. The problem was my reading. Somehow
I must have substituted "command/verb" for "keyword value" when
I parsed that sentence. My fault entirely.

cases, to allow parameters for EHLO? Or to put it another way,
was there any good reasons *not* to allow parameters for EHLO?

...and no one could come up with a good reason 
for such parameters....

I was thinking that it may somehow be used to save a step in the
dialogue. Now that I think about it though, I can't really come
up with a useful example. At least not without turning the entire
negotiation process up-side-down.

...More generally, one really doesn't want to 
have multiple negotiation models floating around...

Sounds like a good enough reason to me.

Thanks for clearing this up and providing some insight into /why/.


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