Mark Martinec:
> > Nope, RFC 2821 and RFC 5321 still has the same text.
> > It even goes on to say ...
>
> RFC 5321 does not allow empty ehlo-keyword:
>
> section 4.1.1.1:
>
> ehlo-ok-rsp = ( "250" SP Domain [ SP ehlo-greet ] CRLF )
> / ( "250-" Domain [ SP ehlo-greet ] CRLF
> *( "250-" ehlo-line CRLF )
> "250" SP ehlo-line CRLF )
>
> ehlo-line = ehlo-keyword *( SP ehlo-param )
>
> ehlo-keyword = (ALPHA / DIGIT) *(ALPHA / DIGIT / "-")
> ; additional syntax of ehlo-params depends on
> ; ehlo-keyword
>
>
> and neither does RFC 2821.
Please read RFC documents carefully. RFC 5321 says that the ABNF
is not authoritative.
The metalinguistic notation used in this document corresponds to the
"Augmented BNF" used in other Internet mail system documents.
[...]
The reader is cautioned that the grammar expressed in the
metalanguage is not comprehensive. There are many instances in which
provisions in the text constrain or otherwise modify the syntax or
semantics implied by the grammar.
For this reason, the text that defines multi-line responses takes
precedence over the grammar for specific replies. The text says
that in the last line of a multi-line reply, the text between SP
and CRLF is optional. This text makes no exceptions for EHLO, and
that is a good thing.
Wietse
