On 22/03/2015 16:24, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
I'm not sure this is constructive, but it's meant to be helpful.
AFAICT RFC3030 has not been widely adopted in practice. Why, do you
think? Do you think the reason, whatever it is, will hurt the new
extension unnecessarily?
I think support for RFC 3030 CHUNKING extension is much more common
these days, but I need to double check major SMTP server implementations.
There is really no reason for this proposal to require support for
CHUNKING, so it can be refactored to work with DATA (I would not change
syntax of the new command though). In general, I find that octet-counted
blocks are easier to implement that something like dot-stuffing.
_______________________________________________
ietf-smtp mailing list
ietf-smtp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp