Yes, I know. The subsequent RFCs 2821 and 5321 are equally unclear on this, I think.
But it is a bit weird to say the human-readable text is for humans only. Since it is transferred via SMTP, the RFC should define how to handle it. And it is ambiguous. I would like option 1 best. David On 7 July 2017 at 12:03, Vladimir Dubrovin <dubro...@corp.mail.ru> wrote: > > Hello David. > > RFC 821 is outdated, use RFC 2821 as proposed or RFC 5321 as a draft for > SMTP. Also, there is an RFC 3463, it adds extended status codes and you > should probably read it. > > According to RFC, only code (and potentially extended status code) are > intended for machine interpretation. The rest of response is a > human-readable text, which should not be automatically interpreted. So, as > a human, you are absolutely free to use it in any reasonable way. You can > either leave it as is, or remove status codes, or concatenate it in the > single line (since it's a human readable form, you should probably replace > CRLF + status code + delimiter characters with a whitespace, because in > human-readable form you do not expect the words to be wrapped or the lines > to contain extra spaces). > > 07.07.2017 12:27, David Hofstee пишет: > > Hi, > > I've an interesting RFC question. In an SMTP reply, one can have single > line or multiline replies. E.g. > > 521 single line reply > > or > > 521-Line one > 521-Line two > 521 Line three > > See also https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc821#page-50 . > > My question is: The reply is an answer that is, necessarily, formatted for > SMTP. But how should the multiline answer be interpreted? What is its > 'value'. > > *option 1: Remove superfluous return codes and <CRLF>s. E.g.:* > 521 Line oneLine twoLine three > > *or option 2: Remove superfluous return codes but keep <CRLF>. E.g.* > 521 Line one > Line two > Line three > > *or option 3: Remove superfluous <CRLF>s. E.g.* > 521-Line one521-Line two521 Line three > > *or option 4: Convert <CRLF>s into '\r\n' to make it a one line answer. > E.g.* > 521-Line one\r\n521-Line two\r\n521 Line three > > *or option 5: Keep everything. Eg. * > 521-Line one > 521-Line two > 521 Line three > > The RFC does not really state that. So I am not quite sure how that should > be logged correctly. Where the formatting starts and what 'value' it is > supposed to represent. When I look at other standards (e.g. > http://json.org), the formatting and what it is to represent, is more > clear. > > This came up when I saw 3 different outputs in different MTA's (1,4 and > 5). Not sure if I have to file a bugreport to my favorite MTA supplier. > > Can anyone say something smart about how the reply should be seen? > > Yours, > > > > David > > > _______________________________________________ > mailop mailing > listmailop@mailop.orghttps://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop > > > -- > Vladimir Dubrovin > @Mail.Ru > > -- -- My opinion is mine.
_______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
