Hello David. RFC 821 is outdated, use RFC 2821 as proposed or RFC 5321 as a draft for SMTP. Also, there is an RFC 3463, it adds extended status codes and you should probably read it.
According to RFC, only code (and potentially extended status code) are intended for machine interpretation. The rest of response is a human-readable text, which should not be automatically interpreted. So, as a human, you are absolutely free to use it in any reasonable way. You can either leave it as is, or remove status codes, or concatenate it in the single line (since it's a human readable form, you should probably replace CRLF + status code + delimiter characters with a whitespace, because in human-readable form you do not expect the words to be wrapped or the lines to contain extra spaces). 07.07.2017 12:27, David Hofstee пишет: > Hi, > > I've an interesting RFC question. In an SMTP reply, one can have > single line or multiline replies. E.g. > > 521 single line reply > > or > > 521-Line one > 521-Line two > 521 Line three > > See also https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc821#page-50 . > > My question is: The reply is an answer that is, necessarily, formatted > for SMTP. But how should the multiline answer be interpreted? What is > its 'value'. > > /option 1: Remove superfluous return codes and <CRLF>s. E.g.:/ > 521 Line oneLine twoLine three > > /or option 2: Remove superfluous return codes but keep <CRLF>. E.g./ > 521 Line one > Line two > Line three > > /or option 3: Remove superfluous <CRLF>s. E.g./ > 521-Line one521-Line two521 Line three > > /or option 4: Convert <CRLF>s into '\r\n' to make it a one line > answer. E.g./ > 521-Line one\r\n521-Line two\r\n521 Line three > > /or option 5: Keep everything. Eg. / > 521-Line one > 521-Line two > 521 Line three > > The RFC does not really state that. So I am not quite sure how that > should be logged correctly. Where the formatting starts and what > 'value' it is supposed to represent. When I look at other standards > (e.g. http://json.org), the formatting and what it is to represent, is > more clear. > > This came up when I saw 3 different outputs in different MTA's (1,4 > and 5). Not sure if I have to file a bugreport to my favorite MTA > supplier. > > Can anyone say something smart about how the reply should be seen? > > Yours, > > > > David > > > _______________________________________________ > mailop mailing list > mailop@mailop.org > https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop -- Vladimir Dubrovin @Mail.Ru
_______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
