On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 08:11:23PM -0700, Jason R. Mastaler wrote: > Is it really a "bug" though? Todd is testing with telnet. People
It's a bug if it isn't properly implementing the SMTP protocol, or if it is fragile when presented with real-world data. A real SMTP server can be tested with telnet--in fact, you can send all your email that way if one is so inclined. tmda-ofmipd is supposed to be a SMTP server with limited capabilities, but it should still provide a real and non-fragile subset of the SMTP protocol. For testing purposes, if someone wants to tell me *what* it's choking on, I can code around it in my testing. But I don't really think that's a substitute for real robustness. A program can complain or validate/reject data, but it shouldn't *die* or close unexpectedly without providing a way to correct the problem. A failure to handle a use case *is* a bug by definition, isn't it? FWIW, the same test works properly against postfix. Granted, tmda-ofmipd isn't trying to be postfix, but it *does* show that my test is a valid one, and that tmda-ofmipd isn't doing what it should. > used tmda-ofmipd with (except tbird) properly detects when a > connection is dropped, raises a flag for the user, and no mail is > lost. But what happens if someone is testing with a new or non-standard client? If they don't know why it's failing, they have no way to determine if the problem is their program or not. That way lies madness. :) -- Unabashedly littering the information superhighway with detritus like this for over 15 years now. _____________________________________________ tmda-users mailing list (tmda-users@tmda.net) http://tmda.net/lists/listinfo/tmda-users
