Re: STARTTLS & EHLO: Errata text?

[Hector Santos <[e-mail]>]

SM wrote:

> One of the questions was about the "The client SHOULD send an EHLO 
> command as the first command after a successful TLS negotiation."  As 
> with everything SMTP, there are two sides, the sender and the receiver.  
> Instead of thinking in terms of whether the sender should send the 
> command, we could look at this in terms of whether the receiver must 
> accept a mail transaction without being sent an EHLO command.  I don't 
> see anything in the specifications that say that.

The more I think about this, I think its just all fine.  We had one 
client presented here who failed to reissue a EHLO/HELO as expected in 
practice.  The server issues a negative response and the client failed 
to continue properly.  Even if the implementer read 3207 as a SHOULD, 
that alone should be enough to tell the client that it MAY have to 
reissue the EHLO/HELO if the MAIL FROM: command failed.

In other words,

   SHOULD says "Be Prepared To Reissue EHLO/HELO"

There is nothing that says that it does not need to send it and abort 
the transaction if the server requires it.

-- 
Sincerely

Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com