ietf-smtp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Retry question

2008-08-10 13:51:34

On 8/10/08 at 3:55 PM -0400, Hector Santos wrote:

Take the following example:

      S: 220 foo.com Simple Mail Transfer Service Ready
      C: EHLO bar.com
      S: 250-foo.com greets bar.com
      S: 250-VRFY
      S: 250 HELP
      C: MAIL FROM:<Smith(_at_)bar(_dot_)com>
      S: 250 OK
      C: VRFY Jones(_at_)foo(_dot_)com
      S: 250 <Jones(_at_)foo(_dot_)com>
      C: RCPT TO:<Jones(_at_)foo(_dot_)com>
      S: 250 OK
      C: VRFY Green(_at_)foo(_dot_)com
      S: 250 <Green(_at_)foo(_dot_)com>
      C: RCPT TO:<Green(_at_)foo(_dot_)com>
      S: 450 Can't send  to him right now
      C: DATA
      S: 354 Start mail input; end with <CRLF>.<CRLF>
      C: Blah blah blah...
      C: ...etc. etc. etc.
      C: .
      S: 250 OK
      C: QUIT
      S: 221 foo.com Service closing transmission channel

So, the message was delivered successfully to Jones(_at_)foo(_dot_)com(_dot_) According to 4.2.5 above, since Green(_at_)foo(_dot_)com exists, and foo.com (the server) has sent back a 250 to the DATA command, foo.com (the server) now has responsibility for delivering the message to Green(_at_)foo(_dot_)com (retrying if necessary) and bar.com (the client) SHOULD NOT attempt to retry delivery to Jones(_at_)foo(_dot_)com(_dot_) Is this the correct interpretation?

Unless I am not see the "ah ha" in your example, in my technical opinion, it is exactly what it means.

OK, I suspected this was Hector's interpretation. As Ned pointed out, there is general consensus that 4.2.5 does *not* mean that and never did. It has also been amply demonstrated here by several folks that the damage done (in terms of lost mail) by interpreting it Hector's way is far greater than the converse. If there are others who read it the same as Hector (and more importantly, implemented it that way), it is important that we document that this is not correct. Either way, it's probably worth writing a document explaining this for beginners.

[BTW: This document would not be a BCP. It's protocol implementation info, and therefore worthy of standards track, IMO. (Enough acronyms for you?)]

pr
--
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>