On 2/9/2018 2:31 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
In article
<20180209202621(_dot_)31355(_dot_)qmail(_at_)f3-external(_dot_)bushwire(_dot_)net>,
Mark Delany <sx6un-fcsr7(_at_)qmda(_dot_)emu(_dot_)st> wrote:
Oh I dunno. The precedent of RFC822 - the very standard we rely on - has
survived numerous upgraded and enhancements over a 36 year period and
managed
to do just fine without a version.
RFC 822 may not have versions but 821/2821/5321 sure do.
As soon as 2821 added EHLO, SMTP got service extensions and pretty
much by their nature, those extensions are not backward compatible.
Sorry. Where is the version number for SMTP?
Which is to day, thanks for demonstrating my point: the 'version' flag
is implicit with the features that are added. If they are present, you
have the 'newer' version.
These are not 'version' flags. They are feature indicators.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html