[Top] [All Lists]

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

2010-08-12 17:53:30

On Wed, 11 Aug 2010, ned+ietf-smtp(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com wrote:

        "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

I agree. The only suggestion I have is that an informational referenece to
Craig Partridge's oringal document on the timeout issue might be helpful to
include after the first sentence.

Yes. Maybe also add to the second sentence a cross-reference to section
7.1 on spoofing?