Claus Assmann wrote: > ..[snip]... >
> I'm not questioning that. It's maybe just a bit "nit picking": the error
> message is misleading as it is not a _violation_ of RFC 2821.
How is it "nit picking" or misleading?
The nature of the SMTP client is to connect to the server, and then see
if that connection is either accepted or rejected. It is a very
poorly designed client that just assumes once a connection channel has not
timed out, that that means the connection has been accepted.
This is perhaps more my interpretation than anything else, but to me, even
when pipelinging is used, the initial connection and response to that
connection are required stop points. Besides, as one person pointed out
in another message of this thread, SMTP is a lock-step process, and can
only be otherwise when both ends of the connection agree that it is not.
So, how can a client decide to not wait for a response when there has not
even been a chance to negotiate a change in the lock-step process?
