On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 11:24:18AM -0400, Jeff Macdonald wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 10:40:52AM -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
(iii) Prohibit different codes and, optionally, suggest
that it is ok for a client to select one of them and
assume that all of the others are the same.
+1
While some may believe the current spec is clear enough, I've seen
individuals outside of this group that have been confused as to what is
valid and I've seen multi-line responses were different codes have been
used. So, the current spec isn't clear enough IMO. I'll try to dig up
some actual examples.
I have found only 1 live example of this:
550-Unknown user
421 clean.daytoncreative.net: SMTP command timeout - closing connection
It is unclear to me what is happening here. 421 can happen at any time,
but is it ok as part of a multi-line response? I think not.
I also have examples of multiple responses to a command. This is not
directly related to multi-line responses, but I'd like to point it out.
I believe the RFC allows this behaviour, but there seems to be two ways
folks handle rejecting content:
C: \r\n.\r\n <-- end of data
S: 5xx
S: 421
and
C: \r\n.\r\n <-- end of data
S: 421-<long explanation>
S: 421
I think it is out of scope, but should the RFC make a recommendation
either way?
--
:: Jeff Macdonald | Principal Engineer, Messaging Technologies
:: e-Dialog | jmacdonald(_at_)e-dialog(_dot_)com
:: 131 Hartwell Ave. | Lexington, MA 02421
:: v: 781-372-1922 | f: 781-863-8118
:: www.e-dialog.com