[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-smtp] SMTP, DSNs, and enhanced replies (was: Re: SMTP server reply extensions)

2020-04-09 09:17:39
Hello John. I hope all is well during this crisis.

I support a technical summary of OPTIONAL Extended Reply Codes (ERC), include some examples but definitely provide references related to ERC.

While ERC is widely supported, not every SMTP system needs them and do not implement them. The key consideration is that ERC is not a SMTP technical protocol requirement for SMTP communications. It is a MAY and not a SHOULD, and most certainly, not a MUST.

That said, I would support the development of a formal response "language" to help automate the system, similar to the "SMTP Service Extension for Greylisting Operations" where is has been shown to have major benefit for timely mail delivery and DSNs for systems who have implemented this protocol.


Related to this, I would "mention" additional SMTP extended add-on protocols that have shown and have some level of SMTP benefits.

Have a good and safe day.


On 4/8/2020 1:34 PM, John C Klensin wrote:

This note is just for information and documentation -- no action
required or requested until we have a WG.

Thinking about my recent response to Jeremy and Timo raised
another question about 5321bis:

Given that the DSN extensions, the DSN model, and the Enhanced
Status Codes are widely implemented and used, should 5321bis
incorporate them or at least reference them normatively?   If
the latter and maybe even if 5321bis ignores them, they are
another candidate for inclusion in the Applicability Statement.

The working copy of 5321bis Appendix G has been modified to add
the above to the list.


ietf-smtp mailing list

ietf-smtp mailing list