2009/1/28 Paul Smith <[email protected]>: > To me, it was (initially) 'clear' that the example saying 'such as the > argument to the EHLO command', was precise enough to imply that the fact > that the EHLO command was sent should not be discarded. It could have > said 'such as the EHLO command', but it went out of its way to say '*the > argument to* the EHLO command'.
But the 'domain' argument to the EHLO command is mandatory (RFC1869 S4.2). So a server state of having received a valid EHLO but not knowing what the domain argument is, is not attainable under 1869. I don't believe 3207's intent is to introduce that state as valid after STARTTLS. Peter -- Peter Bowyer Email: [email protected] Follow me on Twitter: twitter.com/peeebeee
