Re: [client] did not issue MAIL/EXPN/VRFY/ETRN during connection

On 4/28/24 14:40, Claus Aßmann wrote:

So there is some "screwup device" in front of sendmail?
It's broken, get rid of it.

I'm not sure that's broken.
I absolutely agree that it's undesired.
Take a look at the 6th paragraph of RFC 5321 section 4.2.  It's the 3rd paragraph before the ABNF that I think you're quoting:
    An SMTP client MUST determine its actions only by the reply code, not
    by the text (except for the "change of address" 251 and 551 and, if
    necessary, 220, 221, and 421 replies); in the general case, any text,
    including no text at all (although senders SHOULD NOT send bare
    codes), MUST be acceptable.  The space (blank) following the reply
    code is considered part of the text.  Whenever possible, a receiver-
    SMTP SHOULD test the first digit (severity indication) of the reply
    code.
Specifically:
  - An SMTP client MUST determine its actions only by the reply code
  - not by the text
  - in the general case, any text, including no text at all ... MUST be acceptable.
So I feel like "***************************************************" is not an address-literal, but it is definitely "any text".  And the actual value of the text doesn't matter for a greeting.
IMHO the only thing that actually matters is the "2", "2", "0", and " ".
As much as I dislike SMTP $&#*up I don't think that it is actually a problem.  I've seen email flow through such $&#*up many times before.
I don't have the time much less mental fortitude to chase the ABNF that encodes this.  But if this was the last line of a multi-line reply, I believe '"220" [ SP textstring ] CRLF' ABNF accounts for this.
--
Grant. . . .