On Wed, 18 Oct 2000, Jens Lang wrote:
> Thank you very much for your fast reply. I had also took a glance at this
> rfc and told my uplink´s system admin about this, but he could not believe
> it ("qmail is well known for always being RFC compliant"). With your
> opinion it will be much easier to convince him about this, I suppose. :)
Well, the examples in the RFC are crystal clear. Hmm. Wait. The RFC says
(3) The AUTH EHLO keyword contains as a parameter a space separated
list of the names of supported SASL mechanisms.
But... that doesn't specify how the AUTH keyword is separated from its
parameter. For this we have to go to RFC 1869. However, it too seems
clear enough:
ehlo-ok-rsp ::= "250" domain [ SP greeting ] CR LF
/ ( "250-" domain [ SP greeting ] CR LF
*( "250-" ehlo-line CR LF )
"250" SP ehlo-line CR LF )
greeting ::= 1*<any character other than CR or LF>
ehlo-line ::= ehlo-keyword *( SP ehlo-param )
^^
^^
There's the space separator.
> Still, there is the question if you have never heard about others having
> the same problems like I had? qmail is AFAIK a wide spread mailer, isn´t
> it? I saw several other servers (here in Germany, though) using it.
It's used quite widely, but I have not heard of any others having this
problem. Is it perhaps something in the qmail configuration?
> Wouldn´t it be worth a thought to make exim kinda "tolerant among bugs"
> like this one?
I prefer to get the bugs fixed. My opinion has always been that such
tolerance just creates problems later. However, I am a pragmatist. Exim
already contains plenty of features that implement tolerance. But I'm
not very keen on this one, easy though it would be.
--
Philip Hazel University of Cambridge Computing Service,
ph10@??? Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714.
