John C Klensin wrote:
" and supplemental...client" has been deleted
If we want to revisit this subject
No, EHLO syntax allowing clients to explain why
they use a domain literal likely can't help.
A note that the domain literal should match the
sending IP could make sense, but I guess that is
obvious, this scenario doesn't need any MUSTard.
The text has been tentatively changed to
| If the FOR clause appears, it MUST contain exactly one
| <path> entry, even when multiple RCPT commands have been
| given. Multiple <path>s raise some security issues and
| have been deprecated, see Section 7.2.
That conclusion was, again, that (i) FOR clauses
with multiple paths had not been widely implemented
and supported since provision was made for them in
2821 and (ii) the security issues associated with
that information outweighed the debugging advantages.
(iii) Parsing <Additional-Registered-Clauses> after
<For> could be messy if multiple paths are permitted.
This new feature is important. Changing <For> again
could also confuse <uFor> in UTF8SMTP for EAI, please
keep the -07 syntax.
This also is a significant change from RFC 2821 not
expected in this update.
Significant, and noted in appendix G.7 for -05. After
discussions on the SMTP list. The old solution with
huge amounts of prose boiling down to DON'T was worse.
It is also related to BCP 72 22.214.171.124 and 126.96.36.199. In
-07 the RFC 3552 reference went AWOL, please add it
again as justification for this *significant* change,
and more important *intentional* change.