On 2007-07-15 15:08:05 -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
That said, I could see doing something else if there was general
consensus that it would be worthwhile. Partially because of the
circumlocutions and security consideration issues, there is a
lot of text about VRFY and EXPN in 2821bis. I may regret saying
this but, without looking at the spec, I think I could separate
that material out into a separate document called "SMTP VRFY and
EXPN Commands" or words to that effect.
I may have overlooked something, but AFAICS the descriptions of VRFY and
EXPN take about 5 pages out of 95. We would need to keep a page or so
for the syntax and basic functionality description, so we save about 4 %
of the total length at the risk of introducing inconsistencies between
the basics in 2821bis and the details in the separate RFC. Doesn't seem
worthwhile to me.
_ | 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