Re: SMTP question (not quite Gnus-related)

[Daniel Pittman <daniel@rimspace.net>]

On 08 Feb 2001, Kai Großjohann wrote:
> On 08 Feb 2001, Daniel Pittman wrote:
> 
>> It is fine by the fragment you posted. By my reading of it, anyway. 
>> 
>>> ,----
>>> | DATA<CRLF>
>>> | .<CRLF>
>>> `----
>> 
>> That final line is a period on an otherwise empty line, the defined
>> terminator.
> 
> But one message earlier, you said that "<CRLF>.<CRLF>" is the
> terminator.  Now you are saying ".<CRLF>" is the terminator.  Which
> one is it?  (I vote for ".<CRLF>", opposing the example in the RFC.)

Ah. I have the same unclearness as the RFC. So:

DATA <CR> <LF> . <CR> <LF>
--------------                  This is the DATA command.
     ---------------------      This is the end-of-data marker.

> Presumably, an SMTP server reading the DATA command will also read the
> <CRLF> that follows it.  Hence, the <CRLF> is not available for the
> subsequent end of data indication anymore.

That's not how I read the RFC. Specifically, I see the notes on
'<crlf>.<crlf>' as being a hint about what to look for.

Anyway, if you are writing an SMTP sender, avoid sending this (just in
case) and if you write an SMTP receiver, accept it.

Because there *is* ambiguity in the RFC - if there wasn't, we wouldn't
be debating it. ;)

        Daniel

-- 
There is no happiness in having or in getting, but only in giving.
        -- Henry Drummond