Re: [apps-discuss] Feedback on draft-moonesamy-smtp-ipv6-00

S Moonesamy <> Tue, 15 November 2011 08:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9639211E8114 for <>; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 00:09:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.577
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.577 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.022, BAYES_00=-2.599, DATE_IN_PAST_03_06=0.044, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id huF+Rjn1fsdL for <>; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 00:09:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7999F11E80E9 for <>; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 00:09:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id pAF89Rrj000769; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 00:09:32 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1321344573; bh=efoOHNLu02hZv37cWsVZtB7FS6M=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=IQWY7y9hLa1usCyxDSqDH/8qvf88qnEJ8xDNx6I7vbEFrtfbdo9pkyKG631qEpiCX D5OnW2m0fHavusU1KsmFHNT+yM4ThPSOM69VSqyXng/bgtNdv55t7awTYmqJxCctMm 3cOQ73yBsDYXJfGSome2MCeKorUxgKmS4rWizu/M=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 20:46:25 -0800
To: John Levine <>
From: S Moonesamy <>
In-Reply-To: <20111115025746.26808.qmail@joyce.lan>
References: <> <20111115025746.26808.qmail@joyce.lan>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Feedback on draft-moonesamy-smtp-ipv6-00
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 08:09:37 -0000

Hi John,
At 06:57 PM 11/14/2011, John Levine wrote:
>Looks mostly reasonable.

Thanks for the feedback.

>In step (9), you say "If a transient failure condition is reported,
>try the next MX RR" which looks wrong to me.  If you get a 4xx, you
>requeue the message and try it again later.

I agree that it looks wrong.  I was going to suggest "going to Step 
7" instead of Step 3.  The problem though is that you cannot retry 
against the same IP address in all cases as you have to take into 
account the DNS TTL.  The workaround I see is:

(9)  Attempt to deliver the email over the connection established, as
      specified in RFC 5321.  If a transient failure condition is
      reported, try again as defined in RFC 5321 Section

S. Moonesamy