[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Last Call: 'ESMTP and LMTP Transmission Types Registration' to Proposed Standard (fwd)

2003-11-13 13:45:15

At 10:56 AM -0800 11/13/03, ned(_dot_)freed(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com wrote:

 Messing with the syntax is a really bad idea IMO. I understand that there
 is some discomfort in embedding information in tokens like this, but
 it has the feature that it beats the alternatives.

 I might feel differently if I felt this was going  to turn into a completely
 open-ended thing. But I see little chance of our adding additional
 orthogonal security facilities to SMTP in the future. What you see is all
 there is.

That's really the key: are there going to be more in the future? I can't see any, but who knows? Probably the right answer is to add SMTPAUTH and STARTTLS as in Chris' draft, and if at some point in the future we need to add a new orthogonal one, make a syntax change then.
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly-selected tag: ---------------
Good news.  Ten weeks from Friday will be a pretty good day.