[Top] [All Lists]

Re: New Issue: NOOP clarification

2007-11-29 12:29:44
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 13:38:50 EST, Hector Santos said:
  S: 421 5.5.2 Syntax error (command line too long)

This is a *clear* example of "put the crack pipe down and move away
slowly, with your hands in sight" programming.  Under what *conceivable*
circumstances would a "syntax error" qualify for a 4xx return code, which
would imply that re-trying the exact same command later would work?

So it doesn't matter any of the above or if a proxy or not.  Obviously 
some SMTP servers are not following the recommmendations.  Obviously 
some are buggy. It doen't matter of who was right or wrong.

A clarification should be adjusted into NOOP statement to help future 
and current implementations update their codes.

One has to be careful here - adding "clarifications" just adds things for
the crack programmers to totally misinterpret.

Seriously - write up your proposed text, and then *carefully* read it while
thinking "How can somebody who thinks syntax errors are 4xx screw this one
up, when they intentionally *try* to do so?"

Attachment: pgp5LLUU9068H.pgp
Description: PGP signature

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