Just when things are looking good..........
Alistair J. R. Young
Justin The Cynical <d...@null.org> praised Shub-Internet thus:
> Try a few things, nada. So, we telnet to the mail swerver. And I am
> insulted with:
> Microsoft SMTP MAIL ready at Sat, 22 Apr 2000 11:37:13 -0700
> Version: 5.5.1877.197.19
> Yes, not only are they using M$ crapware[4], but they are using IIS
> on NT5[5]!
Well, at least they aren't running Exchange 2000 beta yet...
> Ok. I'm not sure who to blaim here.. The mail client for not being able to
> deal with the RCPT TO: response not having an OK after it, like just about
> every other SMTP swerver I've seen or dealt with, or the M$ mail swerver for
> not putting it in there to begin with.
At least by my reading of it, the RFC doesn't require any specific
text after the code - in which case the mail client deserves all it
gets for when it talks to a robofhness-principle compliant mail
server. Or even MS SMTP Service.
Alistair
--
Computational Thaumaturge, Deus Machinarum. -- Cerebrate of the Silicon Swarm.
e-mail: avata...@arkane.demon.co.uk WWW: http://www.arkane.demon.co.uk/
"Why would you need to? Most operating systems are available for Emacs."
-- me
Justin The Cynical
[snip]
Oh UI not needed. I know it's the client that is b0rken. The RFC proves
that. Interestingly enough, the examples in said RFC show the '250 OK'
response as well. Oh well. Time to write the author and point this out as
well as start the process of setting up a new mail client.
*shrug*
All hardware, all software....
--
"You do have to wonder if anyone's ever tried to figure why so many left-handed
albino Eskimo marketing people are downloading something like a COBOL compiler
or why the CEOs of 50,000 person companies have $15,000 salaries."
- Chris Adams in the SDM Justin The Cynical * cyn...@linuxstart.com-
Alan J Rosenthal
>Ok. I'm not sure who to blaim here.. The mail client for not being able to
>deal with the RCPT TO: response not having an OK after it, like just about
>every other SMTP swerver I've seen or dealt with, or the M$ mail swerver for
>not putting it in there to begin with.
What the FUCK? Of course it's the client.
Sheesh, you don't design standards-compliant software by looking at examples
of "every other SMTP server", you read the fucking standards document.
That is a completely fucked client if it is parsing the text after the 250
and expecting an 'ok'. That's just not the way SMTP works.
(And yes, I did mean "you don't design standards-compliant software by ..." to
be able to be taken either way.)
Malcolm Ray
>d...@null.org (Justin The Cynical) writes:
>>Ok. I'm not sure who to blaim here.. The mail client for not being able to
>>deal with the RCPT TO: response not having an OK after it, like just about
>>every other SMTP swerver I've seen or dealt with, or the M$ mail swerver for
>>not putting it in there to begin with.
>
>What the FUCK? Of course it's the client.
>Sheesh, you don't design standards-compliant software by looking at examples
>of "every other SMTP server", you read the fucking standards document.
Document*s*, please. Don't make the mistake of assuming RFC
821 is the final word on SMTP. Far too much of that around.
>That is a completely fucked client if it is parsing the text after the 250
>and expecting an 'ok'. That's just not the way SMTP works.
>
>(And yes, I did mean "you don't design standards-compliant software by ..." to
>be able to be taken either way.)
I don't know which is worse: SMTP implementors who forget to
read RFC 821, or those who have *only* read 821. An alleged
M[TU]A which barfs on a 250 reply code which doesn't include
'OK' was evidently written by somebody ignorant of RFC 1123,
which could hardly be clearer about this. So, whatever they
implemented, it wasn't SMTP. Good grief, SMTP is one of the
simplest protocols around! What's the 'S' stand for, again?
If you have software which makes this mistake with a trivial
and clearly documented protocol, ask yourself how much trust
you can place in more complex products from the same source.
--
Malcolm Ray University of London Computer Centre
Mike Andrews
mail client:
: That is a completely fucked client if it is parsing the text after the 250
: and expecting an 'ok'. That's just not the way SMTP works.
What he said. The "250" is Good Enough.
--
"And now the traveler's weather report from Luna: Dayside will be
hot, dry, and clear. Nightside will be cold, dry and clear.
Please dress accordingly."
-- Danny Sichel, in rasfw
Justin The Cynical
->Alan J Rosenthal <fl...@dgp.toronto.edu> wrote about a completely fscked
->mail client:
->
->: That is a completely fucked client if it is parsing the text after the 250
->: and expecting an 'ok'. That's just not the way SMTP works.
->
->What he said. The "250" is Good Enough.
Agreed. I read the RFC a bit closer after my annoyance factor went down
a bit. Blech. I was low on coffee at the time as well.
As much as I'd like to blaim the M$ swerver just on general principles, I
can't in this case. I was somewhat suprised to find a M$ product that
didn't twist an RFC.
Now, where did I leave that tarball of $MTA....
Graham Reed
> All hardware, all software....
Y*know, when I was ripping the YellowDog install CD to bits so I could
have more than 15 partitions[1] on the iMac's happy new Big HD, I
decided that if software has to suck, I at least want to be able to fsck
with it.
[1] I like partitions. Apple has some (normally hidden) little
partitions for lowlevel drivers and the partition table. But the RedHat
install doesn't acknowledge the range of viable device minors for
IDE.... If this is suggesting UI to anyone, I can make the patches
available....
--
"We can't die here, think about all that wine at home."
-- from John Woo's _Last Hurrah for Chivalray_