[Top] [All Lists]

Re-query and plea: RFC2821 Implementation Survey

2008-01-02 12:23:56


     Felìz Año Nuevo.

     I am sending the following again, in the hope that anyone who considers
their SMTP software to be a major industry component will view it as a matter
of industry responsibility to respond.  In other words, We've gotten far too
few responses from folks with SMTP products and services.

     RFC2821 cannot advance on the IETF standards track without these
implementation reports.

     So if you think your company's implementation of SMTP is important to
the global Internet's email service, please take the time to complete the
following survey...


The IETF will shortly be considering elevating the revised SMTP specification
RFC 2821, to the second-level standards status of DRAFT.

A requirement for this is to produce information about implementations ofthe
protocol specification.  It is therefore essential that we assemble a credible
collection of information about actual development and interoperability
testing -- and deployment is a form of testing -- for RFC 2821.

Because SMTP is a rich and widely-deployed protocol, the goal of this query is
to ask for enough information to be useful, but not to place undue burdenon
responders by asking them to do a massive checklist.

It is assumed that most implementations of RFC 2821 have implemented all of
its required (MUST) features and probably a fair number of its optional
(SHOULD or MAY) features.

This survey does NOT cover any specifications outside of the RFC2821 document
itself.  No enhancements, options, or the like.

Please take some time to complete the following questionnaire and send mea
private note with your responses.  I will assemble them into a public report:

Please respond by 10 December 2007.

RFC 2821 Implementation Questionnaire

   0. Contact and Description

      Organization Name:

      Implementation (Software or Service) Name:

   1. Have you implemented RFC2821?

   2. For how long it has been deployed?

   3. What features have NOT been implemented from RFC2821?

   4. What features of RFC2821 are problematic for your implementation?

   5. Please add any other comments you wish to share:

Thank you!


  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Re-query and plea: RFC2821 Implementation Survey, Dave Crocker <=