[Top] [All Lists]

Re: deferred RCPT responses

2004-04-03 17:29:14

On 4/3/2004 5:56 PM, John C Klensin wrote:

In this context, this statement is equivalent to "you have been
deliberately wasting our time by expecting the proposal to be
taken seriously".

On the contrary, I worked on it because an interest was expressed:

| Message-ID: <20040328210605(_dot_)GA31012(_at_)zardoc(_dot_)esmtp(_dot_)org>
| From: Claus Assmann <ietf-smtp(_at_)esmtp(_dot_)org>
| To: ietf-smtp(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
| Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 13:06:05 -0800
| Subject: Re: deferred RCPT responses

| This will at least help filtering if the mail is relayed via the
| MTA of the ISP which should be easier to upgrade to support the
| extension.


| Message-Id: 
| From: Valdis(_dot_)Kletnieks(_at_)vt(_dot_)edu
| To: Tony Hansen <tony(_at_)att(_dot_)com>
| Cc: "Eric A. Hall" <ehall(_at_)ehsco(_dot_)com>, 
| Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 12:02:36 -0500
| Subject: Re: deferred RCPT responses

| On the other hand, some of us run legitimate mailing-list servers,
| and see this as useful functionality

In pursuit of that interest, I've donated my otherwise billable time and
submitted a draft with a working model, and if there's further interest,
I'll certainly work on it some more since it's interesting at least.

As of this point, however, all I'm hearing is that the SMTP state machine
can't handle it. Since that coincides with my original thinking, I'm now
of the opinion that it should be shelved.

Do you want to see it progress? I haven't heard a proposal for getting
around the state limits, just reasons why none of them will work, but
correct me if I'm wrong.

Eric A. Hall                              
Internet Core Protocols

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>