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.
[1]
https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-santos-smtpgrey-00.html#rfc.section.2.3
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.
--
HLS
On 4/8/2020 1:34 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
Hi.
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.
best,
john
_______________________________________________
ietf-smtp mailing list
ietf-smtp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp
_______________________________________________
ietf-smtp mailing list
ietf-smtp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp