On 2007-07-14 22:25:43 -0700, SM wrote:
Note that the draft-04 mentions that "Server implementations" should
support both VRFY and EXPN and leaves it to local installations to
disable them if need be. By dropping them, we are removing
functionality that is useful for debugging.
They could be moved to an extension. EXPN is already optional and while
VRFY must be supported it can be (and is frequently) turned off - so in
practice you can't rely on it. The only difference to other extensions
is that they are specified in the core SMTP spec instead of in a
Moving them to a separate RFC would reflect current practice. However,
this may be too large a change for the transition from proposed to draft
_ | 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"
Description: Digital signature