--On Thursday, 19 July, 2007 22:12 +0200 "Peter J. Holzer"
<hjp-ietf-smtp(_at_)hjp(_dot_)at> wrote:
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.
I agree, but, given where the discussion seemed to be headed at
that point, felt obligated to mention the option.
john