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.
- regarding illegally formed address and commands Jack De Winter
- Re: regarding illegally formed address and comman… Ned Freed
- Re: regarding illegally formed address and comman… Jack De Winter
- Re: regarding illegally formed address and comman… D. J. Bernstein
- Re: regarding illegally formed address and comman… Valdis.Kletnieks
- Re: regarding illegally formed address and comman… Ned Freed
- Re: regarding illegally formed address and comman… D. J. Bernstein
- Re: regarding illegally formed address and comman… Jack De Winter
- Re: regarding illegally formed address and comman… Valdis.Kletnieks
- Re: regarding illegally formed address and comman… D. J. Bernstein
- Re: regarding illegally formed address and comman… John C Klensin