Bug 2050206 Comment 8 Edit History

Note: The actual edited comment in the bug view page will always show the original commenter’s name and original timestamp.

Original comment by
on 
If we have the SMTP log and my assumption holds accurate, I would put a **NOOP** as a check in per [RFC 722](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc772):

```         NOOP (NOOP)

            This command does not affect any parameters or previously
            entered commands.  It specifies no action other than that
            the receiver send an OK reply.
```
Revision 1 by
on 
If we have the SMTP log and my assumption holds accurate, I would put a **NOOP** as a check in per [RFC 722](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc772):

``` 
            NOOP (NOOP)

            This command does not affect any parameters or previously
            entered commands.  It specifies no action other than that
            the receiver send an OK reply.
```
Revision 2 by
on 
If we have the SMTP log and my assumption holds accurate, I would put a **NOOP** as a check in per [RFC 772](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc772):

``` 
            NOOP (NOOP)

            This command does not affect any parameters or previously
            entered commands.  It specifies no action other than that
            the receiver send an OK reply.
```

Yeah, I know there are much newer RFC duplicating that, but where is the fun in that? The expected answer is `250 OK` in most cases.

Back to Bug 2050206 Comment 8