Alan J. Flavell wrote:
>>There has been much discussion about the meanings of SHOULD, MUST etc.,
> Ehrlich? I thought there was an RFC about it!
Ja, wirklich. It's RFC2119, AFAIK.
>>there is even a RFC about it.
> So why the discussion?
Maybe because people used to discuss before March 1997, when RFC2119 was
published. And even after that date, people discuss about RFCs. Weird,
I know.
>>Ok, it's not strictly a protocol violation.
> Right. On the other hand, nobody is compelled to accept a mail if
> their policy rules are against it.
Right. If I'd like to accept mail on a random basis it's my own business.
But OTOH, rfc2821 also says:
The SMTP protocol allows a server to formally reject a transaction
while still allowing the initial connection as follows: a 554
response MAY be given in the initial connection opening message
instead of the 220. A server taking this approach MUST still wait
for the client to send a QUIT (see section 4.1.1.10) before closing
the connection and SHOULD respond to any intervening commands with
So, by closing the connection after sending 554 Exim violates the
protocol. But, to be honest, I don't give a damn about this.
