wayne wrote:
There is a very old saying about those who like sausages and
laws should not watch either being made.
Just don't try to make laws and sausages at the same time, and
I'll manage to watch this spectacle.
I think you mis-interpreted what we decided. The codes are
not going to be taken out.
Excellent, but I was talking about these two gentlemen:
<MarkK> Julian: I do not think we can really be without
indicating some sort of required action.
<Julian> The motion is just saying that the spec shall not
make formal recommendations on receiver policy.
Only _if_ the receiver decides to reject, then we
make a _formal_ recommendation on what SMTP reply
code he should use.
So if the _receiver_ decides to reject PermError, then he
wants to know what to put in his SMTP reply code, and that
third gentleman...
<grumpy> Having investigated those code numbers, I think
it should be a SHOULD.
...has the precise codes needed by his colleagues. Now he
only has to put them back in where they were, and in the
form decided in 2300u unanimously, and all are happy again.
With the same "If" as for TempError. Himmelherrgottsackra.
Now while we're wasting time with documenting the 550 5.5.2
in a similar way as 451 4.4.3, and 451 4.3.0, and 550 5.7.1,
as mandated by 2300u, I have an idea how to win some time:
You still have a resolution to replace "prefix" by a better
name. Apparently Julian forgot his plan to use this for an
experimental vote. Now 80 hours before you submit draft -02
this procedure should work: Use "sign" and "qualifier" and
toss a coin. Then simply pick what you like better, Bye.