John C Klensin wrote:
>
But, as several people have pointed out, there is ample reason
to infer an assumption that all codes in a multiline reply will
be the same from the text.
You know thats fine, and its a natural assumption. But its doesn't
represent reality and that reality has evolved from the fact it has been
possible all along to have inconsequential and different reply codes in
continuation lines.
Remember the ONLY thing that a developer has to go by is a 25 year old
suggestion and it is the ONLY thing to go by for implementing a
extremely no brainer concept that the only ultimate reply code is the
last one, hence why it is in place in wide practice. It is not by
coincidence. Why would any system not USE the only logical suggestion
for a reply code design is beyond me.
I honestly don't grasp the resistance. If this has all to to do with
your RFC time-line, thats one thing, but lets not try to continue to
look for reasons to not legitimize what is really a wide practice. What
is being suggested isn't breaking ANYTHING and it has MORE value than
for the future that what is being suggested otherwise.
--
HLS