I don't think we should be failing on bad data if it's pretty clear how to handle it gracefully.
Hi Serge,
I understand where you're coming from, because we want James to be a friendly application to use. However, when dealing with communication on this level, there are well documented standard on how to communicate. We should not dilute the structure of the server to cater to clients that do not follow the rules.
I would suggest perhaps changing the error messages. If someone is only sending LR instead of CRLF, I think we should deny the command, but deny it with an error message that tells them they need to use CRLF and gives them a URL to learn more (however, that URL should not be the RFC, it should be a doc for the unsavvy and the impatient).
A lot of geeky people fail to read RFCs or lengthy docs (that why I suggest an doc for the impatient) . Most will just interact with it and see how it responds, then work off of their assumptions. If they interact with it and James tells them "You're doing A and B wrong." they will learn to do it right. Also... if they are an unsavvy end user and they get an error message saying they are doing something wrong they won't think "*&^^ing james... it never works." they will say "stupid mail client... it never works."
My unfortunatley too busy to help with the source code but overly opinionated 2 cents,
Kenny Smith
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
