On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 00:07:40 EDT, John C Klensin said:
If my memory is correct, 501 (syntax error) is intended, as was
the exclusion of 553 from the MAIL FROM responses. I agree that
the 1123 text is a little muddy (and it is probably at least
partially my fault). Please take a look at
draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-12.txt and see if you think it is clear
and good enough; if not, comments should probably go to the DRUMS
list (copied on this response).
Yes, 501 *is* the correct error, and your example of an embedded blank
getting a 553 was better.
smtpupd section 4.3.2 specifically allows any/all of 501, 550, and 553
on the MAIL FROM: which gives future releases of Sendmail sufficient room
to work. That text looks good and reasonable.
Is there a target date for smtpupd to move out of Draft status and into
RFC, where it will be more cite-able without being a moving target?
--
Valdis Kletnieks
Operating Systems Analyst
Virginia Tech
pgpjEBE0YfXWX.pgp
Description: PGP signature