At 04:41 PM 8/10/2008, John C Klensin wrote:
Substantive: Yes. Regardless of how one feels about this behavior
in an alternate (perhaps even better) universe, in this one, there
is just too much established practice consistent with Ned's
description for second-guessing it to work. If someone wants
something else, it is probably time to dust off and finish some
flavor of per-recipient post-DATA reply model and see if it gets any traction.
A SMTP extension for per-recipient data responses (PRDR) was posted
two years ago.
Procedural: It is probable that I can be talked into an AUTH48
change from "SHOULD not" to "SHOULD NOT" (and the RFC Editor may
catch it first). But anyone wanting _any_ change more substantive
than a change of case or similar editorial matter is going to need
to go to the IESG, ask that the approval of 2821bis be withdrawn and
that a Last Call be initiated on the change. If one were
contemplating that, please do it soon, at least well within the
appeal window because, if you expect me to do it quietly during
AUTH48,... well, there is no chance.
Changing it into "SHOULD NOT" might make it clearer for some
people. Note that the section is about hand-off of responsibility
for delivering the message. I don't see the need for any substantial change.
Regards,
-sm