[Top] [All Lists]

Re: New Issue: NOOP clarification

2007-11-29 12:45:23

I understand Valdis. That is why I leave it to the "Documenation" team to do the write up, if they choose it to be worthy. :-) I personally think this suggestion is as worthly as most other suggested it in cleaning up nits or codifying practice for 2821bis. If not, then once again, I'm wrong in the eyes of those here. :-)


Hector Santos, CTO

Valdis(_dot_)Kletnieks(_at_)vt(_dot_)edu wrote:
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?"

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