Re: [Nmh-workers] nmh 1.5 question

[David Levine]

> >Talking directly to AT&T's SMTP servers is a tad inconvenient
> >now that they require SSL.  But I'll try later.
> 
> I think we have SSL support in send now, don't we?  Even the broke-ass
> SSL required by AT&T? :-)  Okay, I don't think we have -initialtls
> in 1.5.

Right.  I was thinking of telnet'ing directly to the SMTP
server.  Instead, I just added printouts to verify that just
the headers are being sent, with no CRLF inserted to make it
look like they're the body.

> This suggests to me that it's a bug with some SMTP servers that don't
> handle a blank body properly.  I double-checled RFC5322; a blank body
> is ok.

Agreed.  I did notice something else wierd, the SMTP server
sometimes complains:

  post: posting failed; [BHST] premature end-of-file on socket
  send: message not delivered to anyone

I've never seen before, but then I usually don't send empty
messages.  And I've only seen that today with empty messages.
But it's inconsistent:  a re-try usually, but not always,
succeeds.

David