Re: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-04: VRFY and EXPN syntax

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
separate RFC. 

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
standard.

        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