ietf-smtp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: rfc2821bis-04, Issue 38: MX queuing behavior with options

2007-05-31 16:29:38

I think it would be good to have some discussion. The harder question is what to say. I'd like to say that there are some extensions where lack of support is an especially bad thing, and where there are some hints to the client-side that the recipient server normally supports them. The example I'm thinking of is UTF8SMTP, since lack of support when the message requires it means the message must be bounced or possibly worse, downgraded. The downgrade can split the recipients into separate trees, where some recipients don't see the others, and hence a 'reply all' misses them entirely. In addition, with UTF8SMTP, there is some assumption that a UTF8 address implies that the recipient's server supports the extension, otherwise where did the address come from? For these extensions, it might be a better choice to try another server rather than do violence to the message.
--
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly-selected tag: ---------------
Pohl's law:
   Nothing is so good that somebody, somewhere, will not hate it.