Working from memory (always a bad idea) - I think this was hashed out
around 3 or 4 years back on the smail lists.
} > I could change the default Exim banner if enough people thought it a
} > good idea. What do other people think?
}
} Smail currenly puts it out as a second line in the 220 banner (though
} only if ESMTP support is compiled in, of course).
That seems sensible. However didn't one person find a patholgical case
where this didn't work - presumably in a case where the implementor never
thought to handle multiline responses!
} However smail normally also always trys EHLO, which *has* caused some
} minor problems with various commercial gateways to non-unix mail systems
} (Lotus and Microsoft?). About the most I've been willing to compromise
} is to suggest adding a configuration variable or two to list hosts
} and/or networks that must not get an EHLO greeting and optionally those
} to whom we won't answer to EHLO. I think this is better than trying to
} interpret hints from the 220 message, but that's just an opinion.
I thought there was some code added in at one point which if a connection
was closed on receipt of EHLO it immediately retried with HELO. This was
to cope with a mailer from a company with a certain New York Times
columnist as CEO.
} Also in my opionion it's not worth crippling an implementation just
} because you have to talk to one broken neighbour (eg. not compiling in
} ESMTP support). However adding a hint to the 220 message doesn't
} cripple or break anything, so it could be considered a good neighbourly
} practice.
I'll agree with Greg here!
Nigel.
[2 bombs exploded and one more found near here so far today - so you can
guess whats happened if I stop typing in mid-senta
--
[ Nigel.Metheringham@??? - Systems Software Engineer ]
[ Tel : +44 113 251 6012 Fax : +44 113 224 0003 ]
[ Friends don't let friends use sendmail! ]
