I believe it's in last call now.
===
Gregory Woodhouse <gregory(_dot_)woodhouse(_at_)med(_dot_)va(_dot_)gov>
Financial Product Line
+1 415 744 6362
"Computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is
about telescopes." -- E.W. Dijkstra
-----Original Message-----
From: Valdis(_dot_)Kletnieks(_at_)vt(_dot_)edu
[mailto:Valdis(_dot_)Kletnieks(_at_)vt(_dot_)edu]
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2000 2:34 PM
To: John C Klensin
Cc: ietf-smtp(_at_)imc(_dot_)org; drums(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu
Subject: Re: mail-abuse.org tests, and weird addresses...
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