Hector Santos wrote:
You are correct. Exim is broken!! <g> but I guess will correct that to
make it unbroken by changing the specification.
Why do you contend that it is broken? Seriously, if you're going to
claim that an implementation is broken, you have to point to something in
the RFC that the implementation violates (a MUST or a MUST NOT).
Unless you can point to something that says an implementation MUST NOT
use the reply code in the first line of a multiline reply, you should
stop claiming that Exim or Qmail are broken because they use the first
Corrected on Exim. Qmail is broken. But it really doesn't matter any
more, the decision was made to endorse the broken behavior.
Sigh. In what way is requiring all lines of a multiline response to
contain the same code "broken"? It's already specified that way in the RFC
according to my understanding. We're just making it more obvious.
My conclusions stand: there is code out there that is in popular use
that will BREAK if the reply code on the first continuation line is
different from the final non-continuation line.
Thats a given. So they are BROKEN per x821 specs.
When it comes to (1) breaking your commercial SMTP server's
non-standard and weird use of multiline replies, or (2) breaking Exim
and Qmail's perfectly valid interpretation of RFC 2821, I'm afraid
there's no contest.