Hello all,
I am just throwing this out there for comment.
- Proper response code for a disabled EHLO implementation.
What is the proper response code for a system which supports EHLO but for
some reason or another the sysop has it turned off (disabled)?
In older code (versions back in 2001) we used a general 500 response for
commands that were not recognized or implemented but "turned off."
In our current version, for recognized but turned off (disabled) commands
the response was changed to use a 502 response. This was done in
accordance to '2821' section 4.2.4:
4.2.4 Reply Code 502
Questions have been raised as to when reply code 502 (Command not
implemented) SHOULD be returned in preference to other codes. 502
SHOULD be used when the command is actually recognized by the SMTP
server, but not implemented. If the command is not recognized, code
500 SHOULD be returned. Extended SMTP systems MUST NOT list
capabilities in response to EHLO for which they will return 502 (or
500) replies.
However, per 2821, it you look at the possible error codes for EHLO, it
indicates 504, 550 as the possible error response codes.
504 says "command parameters are incorrect"
550 ... command rejected for policy reasons
We didn't use 504 is because this seems to suggest the command is "possible"
with proper parameters.
We didn't use 550 because it sounds more like a "access issue" not a
disabled notification. Also since section 4.2.4 seems to reinforce 502 as
the proper response for a "recognized but not implemented" command, it may
sense to use 502.
What say you here?
First, in my view, I think the document should clarify or distinguish the
difference between the terms;
- recognized,
- implemented and
- disabled.
Second, to me, it sounds like the specific responses can be summarized as:
500 is used for an unrecognized command
502 is used for recognized but disabled commands
504 is used for recognized but with incorrect parameters.
55x is used as a processed command but rejected for some reason
would you agree with this?
Anyway, it seems obvious to understand that per section 4.2.4, 502 is
inherently inclusive of all possible error responses for all ESMTP extended
commands which are recognized but not implemented (to me, that means
disabled).
However, in section 4.3.2, 502 is explicitly stated as possible error codes
for the commands such as VRFY, EXPN. Therefore, at a minimum, 502 should be
added as a possible error code for the EHLO command listed in section 4.3.2.
Do you agree?
Thanks
--
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com