On Thu, 31 Mar 2022, John C Klensin wrote:
Personal opinion: Simplifying "exercises like this" is not
necessarily a useful goal. Please note the last two paragraphs
of Section 2.2.1 of RFC 5321 (and its equivalents in its
predecessors going back to RFC 1425). ...
Well, the alternative is to squat on return codes and take your chances.
Be careful what you wish for.
How about a registry with an expert review rule that new codes need to be
enabled by an extension or else standards track RFC.
While it might work for, e.g., Comcast->Comcast messages and
some others (see below), I don't see it working well with the
model. Suppose we have a sender at example.net who generates a
message in an MUA, hands it off to a submission server, ...
Naah. The people using this will be ESPs, people who send bulk mail for
commercial clients. I promise you they'd implement in in the
aforementioned ten milliseconds.
Regards,
John Levine, johnl(_at_)taugh(_dot_)com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
_______________________________________________
ietf-smtp mailing list
ietf-smtp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp