IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: regarding illegally formed address and commands

Jack De Winter <jack@wildbear.on.ca> Wed, 25 December 1996 06:08 UTC

Received: from cnri by ietf.org id ai06627; 25 Dec 96 1:08 EST
Received: from list.cren.net by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa20519; 24 Dec 96 21:06 EST
Received: from localhost (localhost.0.0.127.in-addr.arpa [127.0.0.1]) by list.cren.net (8.7.6/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA25415; Tue, 24 Dec 1996 20:36:25 -0500 (EST)
Received: from lacroix.wildbear.on.ca (lacroix.wildbear.on.ca [199.246.132.198]) by list.cren.net (8.7.6/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA25403 for <ietf-smtp@list.cren.net>; Tue, 24 Dec 1996 20:36:14 -0500 (EST)
Received: by lacroix.wildbear.on.ca from localhost (router,SLMailNT V3.0); Tue, 24 Dec 1996 20:29:56 -0500
Received: by lacroix.wildbear.on.ca from wildside.wildbear.on.ca (199.246.132.193::mail daemon,SLMailNT V3.0); Tue, 24 Dec 1996 20:29:56 -0500
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19961224203437.00f150cc@lacroix>
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 20:34:38 -0500
Sender: owner-ietf-smtp@list.cren.net
Precedence: bulk
From: Jack De Winter <jack@wildbear.on.ca>
To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Cc: ietf-smtp@list.cren.net
Subject: Re: regarding illegally formed address and commands
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: "Jack De Winter" <jack@wildbear.on.ca>
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.1 beta -- ListProcessor(tm) by CREN

>RFC821 was amended by RFC1123. Section 2.1  states:
>
>   2.1  Host Names and Numbers
>
>      The syntax of a legal Internet host name was specified in RFC-952
>      [DNS:4].  One aspect of host name syntax is hereby changed: the
>      restriction on the first character is relaxed to allow either a
>      letter or a digit.  Host software MUST support this more liberal
>      syntax.
>
>So 1.com is legal (as is 3com.com), but I believe that a1-.com and -1.com
>are still illegal.  You may wish to read all the *rest* of RFC1122 and 1123,
>and see what *other* RFC's they modified and clarified, and look to see if
>they require any code changes in SLMail...

Actually, I did catch that, but for some reason blanked it out.  But
I guess my question still stands.

So far, Dan Bernstein has given the only answer: accept it and then
decide what to do with it at a later date.  He recommended this for
the MAIL FROM, but not RCPT TO.  I am still trying to figure out
what the best response for an illegally formed RCPT is.  I would want
to make it separate enough that it would stand out.

regards,
Jack
-------------------------------------------------
Jack De Winter - Wildbear Consulting, Inc.
(519) 576-3873		http://www.wildbear.on.ca/

Author of SLMail(95/NT) (http://www.seattlelab.com/) and other great products.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email