[Top] [All Lists]

Re: New issue (was Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies)

2007-04-23 10:18:36

--On Monday, 23 April, 2007 09:03 -0700
ned+ietf-smtp(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com wrote:

John C Klensin wrote:

The strawman proposed text would be a provision that a
client SHOULD (or perhaps even MUST) send a RSET or QUIT in
response to a code whose first digit is undefined by either
2821bis or a negotiated extension.

I would agree with that.  Something like:

If an SMTP client receives a reply code that is not defined
by this RFC or a negotiated extension, it SHOULD send a RSET
or QUIT command, and SHOULD treat the unknown reply code as a
5xx code.

I'm with you up to the 5yz code. I think 4yz would be more
appropriate - that way you don't bounce messages unnecessarily
when dealing with a broken server.

Hmm.  Do you want to requeue it and keep trying for four or five
days on the theory that the server might spontaneously fix
itself?  Or would it be better to bounce the puppy and hope that
someone will complain?    I think I can argue that one either

It does need to be a SHOULD so there's an out for dealing with
specific cases of brokenness where 5yz treatment has been
determined to be more appropriate operationally.

After some sleep, either way, I think it can't be more than a


We agree about the multiline stuff.


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