Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) 
        by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id IAA20654; Sat, 8 Aug 1998 08:29:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by cs.cs.utk.edu (bulk_mailer v1.10); Sat, 8 Aug 1998 08:29:32 -0400
Received:  
        by CS.UTK.EDU (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id IAA20608; Sat, 8 Aug 1998 08:29:31 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from koobera.math.uic.edu (koobera.math.uic.edu [131.193.178.247]) 
        by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id IAA20595; Sat, 8 Aug 1998 08:29:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (qmail 27071 invoked by uid 666); 8 Aug 1998 12:29:46 -0000
Date: 8 Aug 1998 12:29:45 -0000
Message-ID: <19980808122945.27069.qmail@cr.yp.to>
Mail-Followup-To: drums@cs.utk.edu
From: "D. J. Bernstein" <djb@cr.yp.to>
To: drums@cs.utk.edu
Subject: 821bis ipv6 syntax

821bis seems to allow

   HELO [IPv6 "1080:0:0:0:8:800:200C:417A"]

That's a syntax error under RFC 821. Some MTAs (e.g., IBM VM SMTP)
reject it with code 501.

Someone trying to send mail through NAT is not going to pleased to crash
into such a frivolous interoperability problem.

When did DRUMS agree to make this syntax change, and what was the
argument for it?

---Dan
Binary qmail distributions are allowed! http://pobox.com/~djb/qmail/dist.html