[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Internet Mail Architecture draft

2004-05-29 14:26:04


EAH> On 5/29/2004 9:28 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:

Certainly the role of independent mta-based routing needs to be cited.

I'm not so sure that re-queuing does. I think of email's queuing as a 
(popular) local implementation issue.

EAH> 4xx means something completely different at:

Well, the 4yz response code model is actually the only reason I think
queuing _might_ be in the architecture.

EAH> The peculiarities are dictated in the specs accordingly. More to my point
EAH> however, is that the [re-]queuing algorithms in the specs also gives
EAH> instructions on what to do in each of those cases.


2821>       4.2.1 Reply Code Severities and Theory
2821>       ... but the SMTP
2821>       client is encouraged to try again.  A rule of thumb to determine


2821>    4.2.5 Reply Codes After DATA and the Subsequent <CRLF>.<CRLF>
2821>    When an SMTP server returns a positive completion status (2yz code)
2821>    after the DATA command is completed with <CRLF>.<CRLF>, it accepts
2821>    responsibility for:
2821>    -  if attempts to deliver the message fail due to transient
2821>       conditions, retrying delivery some reasonable number of times at
2821>       intervals as specified in section 4.5.4.

are examples of the directives given in the specification. By any
reasonable measure of protocol specification, they are pretty darn weak.

Still, the text " SMTP server... it accepts responsibility for...
retrying delivery" would seem, to me, to eliminate any question.  It is
an explicit statement that retrying is part of the model.

 Dave Crocker <mailto:dcrocker(_at_)brandenburg(_dot_)com>
 Brandenburg InternetWorking <>
 Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301>

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