Very good point Sandy, thank you. For peering, it would be good to have some way to know what you are connecting to. Since I have not had the "fun" of peering, I did not think about that side of the coin.
Your point about putting X1 some where else now makes the most sense. I included those points in my reply to Ipswitch. John Tolmachoff IT Manager, Network Engineer 211 E. Imperial Hwy., Suite 106 Fullerton, CA� 92835 714-578-7999, ext. 104 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.reliancesoft.com � -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Sanford Whiteman Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 1:49 PM To: John Tolmachoff Subject: Re[2]: [IMail Forum] IMail's "X1" RFC violation John, It is fairly common to reveal mail server vendor information in the 220 greeting. Even security vendors will do this on their MXs (though it's usually to show off their patch levels). > Since all SMTP traffic is suppose to follow the same RFC and standards, > what does it matter as to whether or not it knows it is talking to > another Imail server? Many of the technologies described in the RFCs are optional. A server need not support all of them--but if supported, they need to be implemented in a consistent manner. The fastest way to get information about what services a server supports is to look at the 220, since it's the first TCP response stream. For example, that's why vendors put "...with ESMTP" in their 220 greetings, even though the RFCs specify that a 250 in response to EHLO has the same meaning. > But why would I want another Imail server to know that it is connecting > to my Imail server? I think it's quite reasonable to have this information available for proprietary interconnects such as peering. The problem is that you can't turn it off! Instead of demanding that Ipswitch take out the X1 entirely, which is unreasonable, how about demanding that it be optional and put at the end of the greeting if it's enabled. If AOL or anyone else starts to check for RFC compliance, a fix is going to have to be made available instantly, so it should be fixed now while there's still time for regression testing. I've also found that all peering needs is *a* 220 X1 ESMTP line, not necessarily the first one. So the easiest fix, still backward-compatible, would be to just put the proprietary tag on the second line, and have the first line be RFC. Sandy Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html to be removed from this list. An Archive of this list is available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/ Please visit the Knowledge Base for answers to frequently asked questions: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/ Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html to be removed from this list. An Archive of this list is available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/ Please visit the Knowledge Base for answers to frequently asked questions: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/
