Subject: smtpupd-09 requires useless EHLO responses

From: "D. J. Bernstein" <[email-masked]>
Date: 30 Jan 1999 07:42:04 -0000

Fact: Approximately 90% of the servers that support both VRFY and EHLO
do _not_ say VRFY in response to EHLO.

> Since they were both
> optional in RFC 821, they MUST be listed as service extensions in an EHLO
> response, if they are supported.

Why? (I asked this in August 1998, and didn't receive an answer.)

If a client wants to use VRFY for some reason, it can simply try the
VRFY command, as per RFC 821. Paying attention to the EHLO response
would be foolish.

So what's the benefit of announcing VRFY? And what's the benefit of
_requiring_ an announcement of VRFY?

Fix: Remove the requirements. Add a paragraph discussing the uselessness
of the EXPN, HELP, SAML, SEND, SOML, TURN, and VRFY extensions.

---Dan

---

From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 11:42:32 -0800

>of the EXPN, HELP, SAML, SEND, SOML, TURN, and VRFY extensions.

I agree with Dan here. If we have a large installed base who are not saying
VRFY in the EHLO response, putting a MUST here is wrong. We should either
de-list them as service extensions, or say "for only the service extensions
AAAA, BBBB, ..., the server does not have to list the service extension in
the response to EHLO."

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium