These guidelines are intended to help distinguish features from genuine bugs. In SMTP, as with many internet protocols, the distinction is subtle at times. The following paragraphs are examples of what might constitute a bug. The list is by no means exhaustive.
If, after reading the following, you are convinced that libESMTP does not do something it should, or vice-versa, get hold of the relevant RFC or other standard and read the relevant parts. Send a bug report which references the standard and justify why libESMTP must change. Usually I will not change behaviour that conforms to normative requirements. However, mistakes do occur in standards so sometimes breaking conformance is unavoidable.
If you spot a mistake in the code, such as failing to check the return value of a function for an error condition, please report it.
If libESMTP uses a C library function that is not provided by a platform then the distribution should contain a replacement for that function and the configure script should detect that the replacement is needed. If neither condition is true, that is a bug.
If libESMTP uses a C library function that is broken on a given platform then the distribution should contain a replacement for that function and the configure script should detect that the replacement is needed. If neither condition is true, that is a bug. A library call is considered broken if its behaviour differs from that described in the appropriate publicly available standard.
Normally, the appropriate standard is Posix or the Single Unix Specification. Remember that Unix man pages or other manufacturer specific documentation of C library functions describe an implementation and do not constitute a standard.
If the configure script does not search all possible locations for a particular library call, that is a bug.
If libESMTP sends SMTP protocol commands which differ from those described in the appropriate RFCs, or fails to respond correctly to valid SMTP responses from a server, that is a bug that should be reported.
SMTP is described in [RFC 5321, Simple Mail Transfer Protocol]. The message format is described in [RFC 5322, Internet Message Format]. Various other RFCs describe the SMTP extension mechanism and specific SMTP extensions. References to the appropriate documents may be found in comments within the source code.
If libESMTP implements behaviour described in an obsoleted standard and the replacement describes different behaviour, that is a bug in libESMTP.
Particular care is needed when referring to RFCs as these may be obsoleted or updated at any time and the new document will have a new and unrelated number. For example, do not refer to [RFC 821, ] or [RFC 1123, Requirements for Internet Hosts - Application and Support] since these are obsoleted by [RFC 5321, Simple Mail Transfer Protocol].
Its amazing how often correct behaviour is reported as a bug. Familiarise yourself with the appropriate documentation. Also read the libESMTP API document. Many people trip up on the subtleties of SMTP and often the documents will answer your question saving your time and mine.
Do not complain that libESMTP can't connect to port 25. The default port for mail submission is 587. This is a deliberate design choice and will not change. Refer to [RFC 4409, Message Submission for Mail] for more information.
You got the line endings wrong. libESMTP strictly adheres to the RFC 5322 message format. RFC 5322 requires that lines in a message are terminated with the sequence CR-LF (0x0D 0x0A or \r\n).
Do not report behaviour that conforms to normative requirements in a standard as a bug, even if you don't like what happens or you find it inconvenient in some way.
Do not assume that behaviour which differs from your favourite mail client is a bug. Just because Mozilla or Outlook or whatever might do something differently does not necessarily mean they are correct and libESMTP is wrong.
Do not report behaviour that differs from requirements in obsolete
standards as bugs. For example, [RFC 821, ] does not permit the syntax
MAIL FROM:<> but [RFC 5321, Simple Mail Transfer Protocol] does.
Do not report libESMTP's default behaviour as a bug if an API call is provided to change it. Ever.
Do not report bugs in SMTP servers or server misconfiguration as libESMTP bugs.
However, if a server is so broken that libESMTP requires a workaround to operate with it at all I am interested in hearing about it. A good example of this sort of thing is the broken SMTP AUTH extension deployed by Yahoo!. This server uses a syntax described in an obsolete and unobtainable internet draft and omits to implement the syntax described in the standard. Fortunately, in this case, the workaround is easy to implement and does not disrupt interoperation with correctly implemented servers.
Don't report libESMTP's use of hostnames or IP addresses that are not visible on the internet side of a firewall. Don't report that NAT makes these unusable.
When a firewall is in use, especially one that does NAT, it is normal to submit mail via a local MTA that knows how to translate and/or qualify domain names and how to enforce site policy. If the firewall permits access to port 25 on the internet for hosts without publicly known hostnames and IP addresses, any mail client will eventually encounter problems with some servers.
Unfortunately, there have been many reports that fall into the categories described above. I will not change the way libESMTP works without good justification. SMTP and mail related documents in general have been subject to rigorous peer review in public before being accepted as standard. Since mail is possibly the most mission critical internet application of them all, it is vital that the infrastructure is not compromised by buggy implementations.