On Thu, 14 Oct 2004, John Peacock wrote:
> You're looking at RFC821 and not RFC2821, I think. The currently
> applicable section of RFC2821 is "4.3.2 Command-Reply Sequences," which
> states this:
>
> > Each command is listed with its usual possible replies.
> ^^^^^
Yes, and the state table is a bit different than in 821, also.
> and goes on to list the following:
>
> EHLO or HELO
> S: 250
> E: 504, 550
>
> so qpsmtpd is perfectly fine.
I also wonder about the appropriateness of issuing 552 "Requested
action aborted: exceeded storage allocation" when a spam or virus is
found, but that's what the plugins are doing (DENY).
Thanks.
--
Roger Walker
"HIS Pain - OUR Gain"
