-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Alex van den Bogaerdt wrote:
I didn't mean that RFC2821 modifies HELO. I am saying that RFC2821
has an implicit "or HELO" every time the reader sees "EHLO", unless
it is made clear that the RFC only talks about the new form.
And RFC2821 _DOES_ define HELO, as the document is "a self-contained
specification" which "obsoletes RFC 821".
Read the abstract in RFC 2821.
(Yes, I do recognize the difference between syntax and semantics.)
If RFC 2821 doesn't modify the semantics of HELO as defined in RFC 821,
then are you saying that RFC 821 _already_ required the argument to HELO
to be a valid FQDN?
If that's what you're saying, then we'll have to agree to disagree,
because while RFC 821 may have some fuzzy and suggestive statements about
HELO, I just don't see it making any clear and strict requirements of
HELO.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFDHGeuwL7PKlBZWjsRAqk5AJ0Zfinpmjq+Ir4jkR5+1eesTdSJxgCff0X+
V1PS2UViPKyQLZYIZpJ1pLU=
=9YPB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com