* Edgar Lovecraft wrote (07/08/05 19:44):
> 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 error is:
>> 2005-07-08 08:05:52 SMTP protocol violation: [...]
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The RFC says:
4.3.1 Sequencing Overview
...
One important reply is the connection greeting. Normally, a receiver
will send a 220 "Service ready" reply when the connection is
completed. The sender SHOULD wait for this greeting message before
^^^^^^
sending any commands.
So the error is misleading only in as much as it says there's been a
"violation" when perhaps there's only been an infringement that nobody
really has a good name for [implementation that doesn't quite do what it
SHOULD?].
It's nitpicking to object to the wording of the error. And it's probably
nitpicking to say that the RFC is internally inconsistent. But my guess
is that the subscribers to this list like a good nitpick more than the
average non-RFC-obsessive. I certainly do.
--
Chris
