Tony Finch wrote:
To me, that is enough to give the client the incentive and understanding
that it needs to re-issue EHLO.
Remember this thread was started by someone who wrote code that did not.
This is why I think that it should be stated that the client MUST be
prepared to issue an EHLO/HELO in a SHOULD currently stated
specification. So even if it did not send the EHLO/HELO and got a
negative response from the server, it should then proceed with an
So the one question I did have was the response code from the server.
As shown, the server issued 550. It was something:
C: MAIL FROM <xxxx>
S: 550 EHLO/HELO required.
Shouldn't the server response be 503 (Bad Sequence of commands)?
If so, should this be stated in the revised text?
Hector Santos, CTO