[REBOL] Re: Send & mail-server problem
From: gscottjones:mchsi at: 7-Aug-2002 9:30
From: "Robert M. Muench"
SJ> > If REBOL does not complain, then this suggests
SJ> > that eXtremail is not sending the correct sequence.
> I will post this on the extremail ML and see what the author has to say
> about it.
Hi, Robert,
Shortly before I received your response, I downloaded the linux package onto
my Windows machine, unpacked it, and searched the binary and found the
phrase "250 Bye". Your efforts further confirm the suspicion.
As a cross check, I double checked the RFC to be sure that 221 is the
correct sign-off sequence, and it is. For the curious:
http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/cs/Services/rfc/rfc-text/rfc2821.txt
... and look for ...
3.9 Terminating Sessions and Connections
> > Alternatively, the scheme could be made a little smarter and
> > look for errant servers and then check the alternative
> > closing sequence.
>
> I don't know how many non-compliant servers there exist. Maybe this is a
> good idea anyway.
Good point. I started hacking to find a way of detecting that the server
software is a particular type, and the hack started to get very involved, so
I am setting that aside for now.
> > Finally, if eXtremail is sending an incorrect sequence, I
> > would suggest sending a correction suggestion to the source
> > maintainer to be fixed in a future release. Just a thought,
> > but obviously very few clients have complained thus far, or
> > the (possible) error would already have been fixed!
>
> That's what I don't understand too. Are all those clients implemented
> with very relaxed checks?
My *guess* is "yes" given that once the email data is sent, and the client
receives a non-error condition, then maybe sending a "QUIT" without waiting
for a return may not be a problem most of the time. It is curious, I admit,
which was why I checked the RFC covering smtp. It is amazing that eXtremail
would not have received an error report sooner. Will wonders never cease?
--Scott Jones
