> -----Original Message----- > From: John Korsak [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
(Quoting RFC2821, section 4.2, "SMTP Replies") > "An SMTP client MUST determine its actions only by the reply > code, not by the text (except for the "change of address" > 251 and 551 and, if necessary, 220, 221, and 421 replies); > in the general case, any text, including no text at all > (although senders SHOULD NOT send bare codes), MUST be > acceptable." Does IMail determine its actions based on the "X1 NT-ESMTP Server" text, or not? RFC2821 also contains: " 4.3.1 Sequencing Overview [...] Note: all the greeting-type replies have the official name (the fully-qualified primary domain name) of the server host as the first word following the reply code. Sometimes the host will have no meaningful name. See 4.1.3 for a discussion of alternatives in these situations. " (and 4.1.3 specifies that an IP address is allowed - in the absence of a meaningful name, of couse) IMail doesn't behave that way, so it is broken. But I agree that this discussion so far doesn't describe the harm IMail's behavior can cause. Rumor and innuendo follows, voices of authority welcome: I've seen it mentioned here before that certain other servers or filters will attempt to match the FQDN in the greeting to the other available mail routing information (destination address and/or MX record, I assume). Since it's clear that the FQDN or IP address is (expected to be) the next word after the reply code, and "X1" is not a FQDN, this can cause delivery failures to IMail servers. -- Dave Salovesh RAM Associates, Inc. (800) 543-3635 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/
