On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Philip Guenther wrote:
Personally, this seems more like a mental exercise in how 1yz reply codes
could be utilized than a particularly good starting point for dealing with the
timeout/keepalive problem. Why settle for just keepalives, which don't help
in the presence of real connection failure, when something more along the
lines of the CHECKPOINT extension (RFC 1845) would let the problem be *solved*
instead of just made less likely?
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-fanf-smtp-rfc1845bis-01.txt :-)
Tony.
--
f.a.n.finch <dot(_at_)dotat(_dot_)at> http://dotat.at/
FISHER GERMAN BIGHT: WEST 4 OR 5, BECOMING VARIABLE 3 OR LESS. MODERATE
OCCASIONALLY ROUGH IN GERMAN BIGHT. FOG PATCHES LATER. MODERATE OR GOOD,
OCCASIONALLY VERY POOR LATER.