[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Strict RFC x821 Compliant: MAIL FROM:

2005-07-06 20:21:05

--On Wednesday, 06 July, 2005 09:12 -0400 Hector Santos
<hsantos(_at_)santronics(_dot_)com> wrote:


None of  this is surprising, at least to me.  The question is
whether you think the SMTP spec should be modified to
_require_ servers to accept the sorts of "variations" you
outline and to explicitly authorize (and thereby encourage)
clients to send them?  And, if so, which ones and why?

May I ask, what are your plans or considerations for 2821bis? 

What new considerations are in it?

To all intents and purposes, 2821bis-00 is functionally
identical to 2821.  A great many errors and blocks of confusing
language have been fixed, and some particularly confusing and
disorganized text has been rewritten, reorganized, or replaced.
There are also some issues, largely unresolved in -00, about
what the Security Considerations section should actually cover
(see RFC 3552).  

But the revision/update has been done on the assumption that the
goal is to fix errors and clarify whatever needs to be clarified
and then get the thing to Draft, not to introduce new
specifications, considerations, or requirements that would
require recycling at Proposed.  

If you, or anyone else, are convinced that a revision is needed
that would bring 2821bis into conformance with ways in which you
believe mail should work differently from that which is required
by the generally-accepted readings of 2821 today, you had best
start organizing a WG Charter, people willing to do the work,
etc.  And those are discussions you will need to have with the
applicable ADs, not with me.