[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Changing RFC 5322 guidance about crlf.crlf response delay

2010-08-11 12:07:16

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf-smtp(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org [mailto:owner-ietf-
smtp(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of John C Klensin
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 8:15 AM
To: dcrocker(_at_)bbiw(_dot_)net; SMTP Interest Group
Subject: Re: Changing RFC 5322 guidance about crlf.crlf response delay

I note, again fwiw, that I've been trying to get various
advocates for a ban (or near-ban) on NDNs to write that separate
document and propose a specific model at regular intervals since
well before 2821 was completed.

I'm new to that particular topic.  Can you explain its motivation or point me 
to a discussion thread that lays it out so I can get some context?

      "Long delays after the <CRLF>.<CRLF> is received can
      result in timeouts and duplicate messages.  Deferring
      detailed message analysis until after the SMTP
      connection has closed can result in non-delivery
      notifications, possibly sent to incorrect addresses.  A
      receiver-SMTP MUST carefully balance these two
      considerations, i.e., the time required to respond to
      the final <CRLF>.<CRLF> end of data indicator and the
      desirable goal of rejecting undeliverable or
      unacceptable messages at SMTP time."

I like this text.  I think it reflects current operational realities quite 

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