Re: Multiple HELO/EHLO?

Lyndon Nerenberg <> Tue, 03 October 2000 16:30 UTC

Received: from (CS.UTK.EDU []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id MAA16181 for <>; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 12:30:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id MAA27402; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 12:30:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by (bulk_mailer v1.13); Tue, 3 Oct 2000 12:30:02 -0400
Received: by (cf v2.9s-UTK) id MAA27383; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 12:30:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from (marvin@localhost) by with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id MAA27317; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 12:29:45 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ( -> by (smtpshim v1.0); Tue, 3 Oct 2000 12:29:53 -0400
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA955992F6; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 10:29:42 -0600 (MDT)
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 10:29:42 -0600
From: Lyndon Nerenberg <>
To: Brad Knowles <>
Subject: Re: Multiple HELO/EHLO?
In-Reply-To: <v04220814b5ffb166e600@[]>
Message-ID: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
List-Unsubscribe: <>

> 	Now, the only section of the current draft that I was able to 
> find that appears to address this issue at all is the ninth paragraph 
> of section

Section 4.1.4 para 2 spells it out explicitly:

An EHLO command MAY be issued by a client later in the session.  If it
is issued after the session begins, the SMTP server MUST clear all
buffers and reset the state exactly as if a RSET command had been
issued.  In other words, the sequence of RSET followed immediately by
EHLO is redundant, but not harmful other than in the performance cost
of executing unnecessary commands.