On 2007-02-06 10:49:59 -0800, Claus Assmann wrote:
* Client initiates by sending MAIL with an extension.
* RCPT returns normal reply codes (no 3yz)
* DATA and the last BDAT return (in order):
1. 353 to indicate the start of server responses
1.a. possible optimization: a single {2,4,5}yz reply code
to indicate the overall transaction status in
which case the next two steps are skipped.
2. one reply code per recipient which got a 2yz reply.
3. one end of mail reply code (as in the current ESMTP model,
which is the same as the "final" reply code in
draft-hall-deferrals).
So we still have to decide between:
(I) get rid of step 1.: 353 (and increase the timeout to the
first deferred RCPT response),
(II) or use 353 with the optimization 1.a.
Here's my vote: (II).
(II)++.
I notice that the optimization is just normal SMTP.
hp
--
_ | Peter J. Holzer | I know I'd be respectful of a pirate
|_|_) | Sysadmin WSR | with an emu on his shoulder.
| | | hjp(_at_)hjp(_dot_)at |
__/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | -- Sam in "Freefall"
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature