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


Hi Tony,
At 09:19 11-08-10, Tony Hansen wrote:

I'm wondering if, instead of changing the 5321 guidance, there needsto be text added to 4409bis about timeouts being shorter than thosenormally used by SMTP.

I vague recall that the question of timeouts came up during adiscussion about 4409bis.


Regards,

-sm

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
Re: Changing RFC 5322 guidance about crlf.crlf response delay, (continued) Re: Changing RFC 5322 guidance about crlf.crlf response delay, John C Klensin Re: Changing RFC 5322 guidance about crlf.crlf response delay, Tony Hansen Draft to Full, versus cycling at Draft, Dave CROCKER Re: Draft to Full, versus cycling at Draft, John C Klensin Re: Draft to Full, versus cycling at Draft, Tony Hansen Re: Draft to Full, versus cycling at Draft, Hector Santos Re: Draft to Full, versus cycling at Draft, Jeff Macdonald Re: Draft to Full, versus cycling at Draft, SM Re: Draft to Full, versus cycling at Draft, John C Klensin Re: Draft to Full, versus cycling at Draft, SM Re: Changing RFC 5322 guidance about crlf.crlf response delay, SM <= Re: Changing RFC 5322 guidance about crlf.crlf response delay, Tony Finch Re: Changing RFC 5322 guidance about crlf.crlf response delay, Hector Santos RE: Changing RFC 5322 guidance about crlf.crlf response delay, Murray S. Kucherawy Re: Changing RFC 5322 guidance about crlf.crlf response delay, Dave CROCKER Re: Changing RFC 5322 guidance about crlf.crlf response delay, Steve Atkins Re: Changing RFC 5322 guidance about crlf.crlf response delay, Dave CROCKER Re: Changing RFC 5322 guidance about crlf.crlf response delay, Steve Atkins Re: Changing RFC 5322 guidance about crlf.crlf response delay, Jeff Macdonald Re: Changing RFC 5322 guidance about crlf.crlf response delay, Steve Atkins Re: Changing RFC 5322 guidance about crlf.crlf response delay, Jeff Macdonald