Re: Odd registrar behaviour

On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 04:24:06PM +0800, Lars Hansson wrote:
> Not. qmail defers delivery when it recevied a 572 immediate on connecting.

More correctly, qmail-remote defers on anything but a 220 banner.
This was fine while RFC 821 was in effect (since it defined the only
other expected response code as 421), but RFC 2821 now defines the
alternate response code as 554 (ie. a permanent failure).

The problem here, therefore, is on both sides:

* qmail-remote, for deferring on a 5xx banner

* x.ph, for immediately closing the connection after returning its 5xx
  banner (RFC 2821 clearly states that it should continue to accept
  further commands and respond with code 503 until a QUIT).

A "friendlier" behavior for x.ph would be to respond with a 220 banner,
then 503 every subsequent command till a QUIT.  Sorta like rblsmtpd with
RBLSMTPD="-Relay not authorized".

--

-- 
Adrian Ho    Tinker, Drifter, Fixer, Bum   aho-djb-djbdns <at> 03s.net
ListArchive: <http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=djbdns>
Useful URLs: <http://cr.yp.to/djbdns.html> <http://tinydns.org/>
             <http://www.lifewithdjbdns.org/> <http://djbdns.faqts.com/>