On 1/28/07, Peter J. Holzer <hjp-asrg(_at_)hjp(_dot_)at> wrote:
On 2007-01-28 21:24:33 +0100, Frank Ellermann wrote:
> Peter J. Holzer wrote:
> > David Nicol's DATAFIRST proposal.
> [...]
I'm not interested in DATAFIRST. I'm interested in returning
per-recipient results to DATA.
they aren't mutually exclusive. Nobody is saying they are, but someone
who does not realize that they aren't might think that they are, and
that there is some kind of dispute, where there isn't.
> What I didn't like in draft-hall-inline-dsn was the sequence of
> per recipient responses after DATA matching the sequence of RCPT
> before DATA.
That's what the proposal is about. It allows several return codes for
DATA. The exact mechanism might be different (for example, there could
be a multiline-response instead of multiple single-line responses, or
the return codes can be matched by address instead of order), but these
are minor changes.
the one request, one response model is crucial to SMTP servers -- you
can write a smtp server that essentially does
smtp_connect;
while (accept and fork){
send_smtp("EHLO blah blah blah");
send_smtp(craft_smtp_response(receive_smtp())) while 1;
};
and multiple response lines makes that no longer work; or means that
the receive_smtp() has to have a lot more data in it than if we are reading
a data block or not.
so if the ordering is important, maintain it; how about a big response that
is a well-defined XML block?
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg