Re: [evolution-patches] Use of invalid HELO.

[David Woodhouse <dwmw2 infradead org>]

On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 15:07 -0500, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> not being translatable has nothing to do with it. the fact that your
> server does not specify that it supports the ENHANCEDSTATUSCODES
> extension *is*.

I agree that translatability should be irrelevant -- especially as the
mail server we use will tend to be the user's local mail server anyway
and hence likely to give messages in an appropriate language. I
mentioned translatability merely because I had a vague recollection that
it was one of the reasons given for not reporting errors correctly, last
time we discussed this. 

But ENHANCEDSTATUSCODES is similarly a red herring. The server in
question does _not_ support ENHANCEDSTATUSCODES, and even if it did,
RFC2034 has no specific code for "You violated RFC2821 at the HELO stage
but too many broken mailers just keep trying if we tell them to sod off
then, so we delayed the rejection till the RCPT TO stage" anyway.

SMTP responses contain human-readable text. It is a severe usability
problem if error boxes omit that when reporting errors to the user.

-- 
dwmw2