On Sun, Nov 30, 2003, Matthew Elvey wrote:
True. By deprecated, I mean a spec that says that MTAs SHOULD not (not
MUST not) use <>. Let's see if there is another solution for
everything legit that it's currently useful for. We don't want <> to be
a way around LMTP, right? For any failure DSN, I think the systems
LMTP?
that send them can and should be modified so that all the failure status
codes of rfc 1893 can be provided during SMTP. Any intermediate system
(offline UUCP excepted) that does so would need to be redesigned, as you
point out below, if they wanted to avoid using <>. For any success
DSNs, perhaps they shouldn't be sent MAIL FROM: <>. Locally generated
and delivered mail shouldn't be bitbucketed.
What about systems that are temporarily offline? Do you want to get
rid of queueing? Reminds me of the X.500 mailsystem we had: "the
system is currently unavailable, try again later" whenever it
encountered a problem... requiring the user to do the queueing (and
retrying) is a really bad idea.
An intermediate system has 10 minutes after the end-of-data indicator to
Some systems (esp. MUAs) don't wait 10 minutes.
PS: there are better ways to deal with MAIL From:<>
e.g., keep track of mails you sent and only accept DSNs for those.
This doesn't break anything in contrast to the proposals that are
coming up here again and again without considering why DSNs are
necessary and why <> has been chosen as sender address.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg