On Thu, 3 May 2007, Tony Hansen wrote:
I'm going to close the issue, but note, as Frank suggests, that it
should be checked as part of the implementation and interoperability report.
Based on my testing, common implmentations (Sendmail, Exim, Postfix,
Exchange) do not accept this syntax. (Some of them can be configured to
accept any kind of junk after EHLO but if their syntax checker is turned
on they reject explained-literals.) My servers have seen no (zero)
instances of this syntax by clients in the last month (out of two to three
million messages per day). (We don't keep logs longer than that.)
As far as I can tell from the DRUMS archive this wording was added to
draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-04 without any pertinent discussion - it seemed
to be a reaction to an argument about canonical names.
I think this all indicates that the feature should be removed.
I have to agree with Tony here. I like the idea behind this and as it happens
our implementation can accept this syntax. However, the checks many people have
in place will prevent it from working on a lot of actual systems out there. I
can virtually guarantee a ton of interop problems if this is adopted.
Ned