Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) 
        by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id UAA20522; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 20:34:27 -0400
Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (bulk_mailer v1.6); Mon, 1 Jul 1996 20:34:14 -0400
Received: from koobera.math.uic.edu (qmailr@KOOBERA.MATH.UIC.EDU [128.248.178.247]) 
        by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id UAA20502; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 20:34:12 -0400
Received: (qmail-queue invoked by uid 666); 2 Jul 1996 00:37:44 -0000
Date: 2 Jul 1996 00:37:44 -0000
Message-ID: <19960702003744.5759.qmail@koobera.math.uic.edu>
From: djb@koobera.math.uic.edu (D. J. Bernstein)
To: drums@cs.utk.edu
Subject: Re: 821bis outstanding issues list -- post Montreal

> Yep.  Because we're also recommending that SMTPbis clients support
> 8BITMIME (perhaps also SIZE), and that requires them to send EHLO first.

That's a silly argument.

An 821bis server will live in a world of mostly pre-821bis clients,
just as an ESMTP server today lives in a world of mostly pre-ESMTP
clients.

An ESMTP server that doesn't say ESMTP in the greeting line is
eliminating almost 90% of its clientele. This may eventually change,
but for the moment it's reality.

> But we've had this discussion before, and there hasn't been consensus
> to require servers to do so.

I propose adding the following text to the 220 discussion:

   Note that many existing clients will use HELO instead of EHLO,
   disabling ESMTP, if the server's greeting text does not contain
   the string "ESMTP".

Any objections?

---Dan