[Top] [All Lists]

Re: STARTTLS & EHLO: Errata text?

2009-02-01 00:52:18

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 EHLO/HELO.

So the one question I did have was the response code from the server. As shown, the server issued 550. It was something:

   [TLS established]
   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