[101452] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: SMTP addresses in <>
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Fri Jan 4 15:12:46 2008
To: Seth Mattinen <sethm@rollernet.us>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 04 Jan 2008 07:51:15 PST."
<477E55F3.4040603@rollernet.us>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:11:45 -0500
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
--==_Exmh_1199477505_8220P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 07:51:15 PST, Seth Mattinen said:
>
> I'm having a bit of an argument with a customer over the command syntax
> in RFC 2821 that shows command arguments for MAIL/RCPT commands in
> brackets, i.e.:
>
> Path = "<" [ A-d-l ":" ] Mailbox ">"
> Mailbox = Local-part "@" Domain
>
> Our mail servers reject connections that don't follow the RFC. Am I
> wrong to do this? This guy certainly thinks so, even after I've cited
The best reason I've come up with for rejecting mail from software so totally
brain-dead that they can't get the < > around an address right is this:
If they botch this, they've probably botched a bunch of other stuff, and
accepting mail from them is almost certain to lead to grief once you send the
'250 OK' after DATA.
If they couldn't get < > *around* the address in the MAIL FROM:, what makes
you think the address is valid? Where does any ensuing bounce end up?
And more importantly, can you find out what crapware is that brain-dead and
let us know, so that those of us who believe in enforcing standards can shun it?
:)
--==_Exmh_1199477505_8220P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFHfpMBcC3lWbTT17ARAvw4AKCOGCXjCixYFaMGI12ZrLT8EwZ9dQCffQAH
ScdY+eUGFfbG2+bkPe/Ca6I=
=hcC0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1199477505_8220P--
