[Top] [All Lists]

Registration rules for extensions (was: Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies)

2007-04-22 12:31:45

(subject line changed since this is not a 2821bis problem unless
we want to try redefine the registry rules as part of 2821bis.
If anyone really wants to go down that path, supply draft text
and I'll assign an issue number.   But I'd strongly recommend
that this work be done separately if at all.)

--On Sunday, 22 April, 2007 20:20 +0200 Frank Ellermann
<nobody(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de> wrote:

Kari Hurtta wrote:

Perhaps off topic, but it seems that sendmail uses 0xx
with similar way if VERB command is given
250 2.0.0 Verbose mode
MAIL FROM:<hurtta(_at_)localhost>
250 2.1.0 <hurtta(_at_)localhost>... Sender ok
RCPT TO:<root>
050 <root>... aliased to hurtta
250 2.1.5 <root>... Recipient ok

Seems that
lists VERB

Interesting, apparently they had some rather odd rules about
registering extensions (Ned 1, Frank 0).  But otherwise it
it is a clear "opt-in" extension, both sides are supposed to
know what the effect of VERB is, no problem for 2821(bis).

Yes.  See earlier note.

Is it already clear that "buy the bat book" is not what we
want for registered extensions ?

Personal opinion: I would prefer to have an RFC reference for
every one of these.  However, to avoid conflicts, I'd rather
have an extension registered than not, so, if the choice is "no
registration" and "ask Eric", I prefer "ask Eric".  And, yes, I
would prefer "buy the bat book and look at pages ..." to "ask
Eric" or even "read the code" although, if you ask me what I
"want", we will be back to "RFC number".


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