Author: David Woodhouse Date: To: Matthew Byng-Maddick CC: exim-users Subject: Re: [Exim] SMTP protocol violation complaint -- false positives.
On Sat, 2003-12-13 at 15:54 +0000, Matthew Byng-Maddick wrote: > Sure. That's absolutely true. The difficulty with PIPELINING is that you
> can't tell where the end of packet-data was supposed to be from the Layer
> 5 stream. I'm not sure any test is going to be perfect, but I'd quite like
> to see apparent protocol violations logged a bit better, and I like Exim 4
> for that...
Sorry for delayed response. You keep dropping me from the recipients so
I don't see your replies.
I suppose you could fall back to the less severe 554 error and disable
the protocol violation warning if the client in question had PIPELINING
advertised and has _ever_ been observed to batch commands, rather than
relying only on evidence of batching for the command you don't like.
That would drastically reduce the (already vanishingly small) number of
false positives, wouldn't it?
