[Top] [All Lists]

Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies

2007-04-23 14:41:52

David F. Skoll wrote:
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).

The ABNF says:

   Reply-line     = Reply-code [ SP text ] CRLF

it does not say:

   Reply-line     = Reply-code [ SP | "-" text ] CRLF

nor does it say:

   Reply-line     = Reply-code

Now of course, if you are going kludge an endorsement by changing the standard to:

   Reply-line     = *( Reply-code "-" [ text ] CRLF ) /
                  Reply-code [ SP text ] CRLF
   Reply-code     = %x31-35 %x30-35 %x30-39

in order to make BROKEN behavior officially compliant in 2821bis, then hey, more power to you.

Unless you can point to something that says an implementation MUST NOT
use the reply code in the first line of a multiline reply,

see above

you should
stop claiming that Exim or Qmail are broken because they use the first

I understand the truth something does hurt. Its BROKEN CODE - PERIOD!


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>