Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies

On 2007-04-22 16:46:06 -0400, Hector Santos wrote:
> Just look at how it has been interpretation at:
>
>    http://www.tcpipguide.com/free/t_SMTPRepliesandReplyCodes-2.htm
>
> You can't just throw that out into the waste basket.
Why not? There are tons of bad books out there which belong into the
waste basket. To be fair, a simple mixup of sender and recipient in a
case which can only happen if the server uses an extension not defined
in any RFC is probably easy to miss (I had to read the sentence several
times to see what was wrong with it and I was specifically looking for
an error).


> The point is that it has possible and always been possible and by far 
> clients have evolved to followed the 25 year old formal declaration of 
> using only a "xyz[sp]" concept to the command response and ignoring 
> continuation reply codes in lines with "xyz-".
Except that this has not been formally defined for 25 years. That is
your interpretation of an (admittedly not perfectly clear) 25 year old
specification.


> What are you basically implying that we have a problem with clients not 
> supporting the 25 year specification
No, we are concerned that clients which are supporting the 25 year old
specification will be rendered non-compliant if your interpretation is
formalized.

        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