Last Friday, I created a new thread:
Posted By: peterhuppertz in Aspose.Email Product
Family
Subject: [SMTP] The server committed a protocol violation. The server response
was: Enter mail, end with “.” on a line by itself’. The link to that topic was
I can see in my email that Kashif responded to this. However, the thread appears to have disappeared. :-o
Therefore, I open this new topic to breathe life back into the issue.
My question was (and is) as follows:
We
have a situation wherein, on one particular host, while using Aspose.Email to
send a message via SMTP, the client throws an error stating:
The server committed a
protocol violation. The server response was: Enter mail, end with “.”
on a line by itself’.
On a different SMTP host in the same network, running the code works just fine.
I’ve written some test code, which is in the attached file
TestAsposeEmail.zip (I took the license files out).
This program outputted a couple log files, which are attached in
testAsposeEmailLogs 24-04-2017.zip
The file SmtpTest.log contains the actual exception thrown by the “offending” system.
The file called Aspose.Email.SMTP_2017-4-24.log is a text file that echos the SMTP dialogs. The first half is the dialog as conducted by the system on which the dialog fails (10.13.10.60); the second part (172.16.4.83) is the working system.
What puzzles me is what would trigger the protocol violation exception in the first dialog - I don’t see anything wrong there.
Kashif then responded the same day, as follows:
I have tested this issue using my test account credentials and observed no issue. It seems to be specific issue with your server settings. I have shared the log files with my product team and will write back here as soon as some feedback is received.
I’m not amazed that you could not replicate this, as I myself have been unable to replicate the behaviour here. I would be interested to know what specific situation or setting could cause this behaviour to occur, as the SMTP dialog itself, including the response that the server coughs up, seems to be perfectly valid.
Regards,
Peter