John C Klensin wrote:
The command has been accepted, but the requested action
is being held in abeyance, pending confirmation of the
information in this reply. The SMTP client should send
another command specifying whether to continue or abort
the action. Note: This specification does not define
any commands that allow this type of reply, nor is there
a continuation command for use with it. Such commands,
or modifications to the behavior of existing commands,
and semantics for these codes could be specified using
the extension mechanism.
John, for the sake of the group progress, if we are talking about
non-continuation lines only, then I'm going to vote "Fine", +1.
But IMV, it still has the implied semantic argument that it CANNOT be
used without an extended SMTP consideration and if that is what you are
seeking, then why not spell it out? "It MUST NOT used by SERVERS."
The way I proposed to structured it left it "open ended" for new designs
and just laying down the idea that the current scope is undefined.
Just consider the new discoveries with SENDMAIL:
- It doesn't care,
- it Ignore junk lines,
- It has built-in support for non-standard 0xx- "Informational" lines,
- It supports the LAST REPLY LINE concept as suggested by 4.2.1
So its really a non-issue as far as running code.
Anyway, I'll leave it with your final judgment on this. I appreciated
your consideration on this.