Hi David, Given this example from an SMTP trace:
550-5.7.1 [X.X.X.X 18] Our system has detected that this message is 550-5.7.1 likely suspicious due to the very low reputation of the sending IP 550-5.7.1 address. To best protect our users from spam, the message has been 550-5.7.1 blocked. Please visit 550 5.7.1 https://support.google.com/mail/answer/188131 for more information. w198si19789289wmd.1 - gsmtp I would log is as a single line, removing the folding and removing repeated enhanced status codes: 550 5.7.1 [X.X.X.X 18] Our system has detected that this message is likely suspicious due to the very low reputation of the sending IP address. To best protect our users from spam, the message has been blocked. Please visit https://support.google.com/mail/answer/188131 for more information. w198si19789289wmd.1 - gsmtp Maarten Oelering Postmastery > On 7 Jul 2017, at 13:36, David Hofstee <opentext.dhofs...@gmail.com> wrote: > > And actually, this reply has to possibly be transferred to a DSN as well (see > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3464#section-2.3.6 > <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3464#section-2.3.6> ). Those diagnostic-code > field values may be multiline as well, but I presume one would leave the > numeric codes out. > > @Stefano: Not sure if I have the time, but good tip on checking if it is a > bug or not. > > Yours, > > > David > > On 7 July 2017 at 12:28, David Hofstee <opentext.dhofs...@gmail.com > <mailto:opentext.dhofs...@gmail.com>> wrote: > Yes, I know. The subsequent RFCs 2821 and 5321 are equally unclear on this, I > think. > > But it is a bit weird to say the human-readable text is for humans only. > Since it is transferred via SMTP, the RFC should define how to handle it. And > it is ambiguous. I would like option 1 best. > > David > > On 7 July 2017 at 12:03, Vladimir Dubrovin <dubro...@corp.mail.ru > <mailto:dubro...@corp.mail.ru>> wrote: > > 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 RFC 821 is outdated, use RFC 2821 as proposed or RFC 5321 as a draft for 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 >> <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 >> <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 <mailto:mailop@mailop.org> >> https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop >> <https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop> > > -- > Vladimir Dubrovin > @Mail.Ru > > > > -- > -- > My opinion is mine. > > > > -- > -- > My opinion is mine. > _______________________________________________ > mailop mailing list > mailop@mailop.org > https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
_______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
