[Top] [All Lists]

Re: draft-hall-deferrals-00.txt

2007-02-02 19:45:35

On 1/30/2007 7:21 PM, Claus Assmann wrote:
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007, Tony Finch wrote:

My main question about this draft is whether the extra complexity compared
to LMTP is really useful. What is your rationale for it? I have considered

It avoids replies for those recipients that are accepted without
having to check the message. Is it worth it? I don't know...

I think I was looking for a way to reduce the size of the post-DATA
response list but I can't really remember. It probably also struck me as
opportune way to deal with some kinds of dictionary attacks, but given the
bilateral nature of this extension that would have been a fairly dumb
thing to design for. It was an off-the-cuff design so I may not have
really thought about it even to that extent, dunno.

I'm not really married to the 3xx responses to RCPT and if people think a
straight 1-for-1 linear response would be easier to track, that's fine
with me. SMTP clients still need to keep track of per-recipient response
codes (RCPT codes if nothing else), and this really only introduces a
minor amount of complexity to that existing requirement, but if it's
annoying to code I have no problems about pulling it out.

Eric A. Hall                              
Internet Core Protocols

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