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

Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Tue, 15 November 2011 10:59 UTC

Return-Path: <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E62121F8EDC for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 02:59:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id i5HZYW1Ax1Qa for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 02:59:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ppsw-50.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-50.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.150]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F084921F8EDF for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 02:59:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-SpamDetails: not scanned
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/
Received: from hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.54]:36192) by ppsw-50.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.157]:25) with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:fanf2) id 1RQGjP-0005V6-sV (Exim 4.72) (return-path <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Tue, 15 Nov 2011 10:59:11 +0000
Received: from fanf2 (helo=localhost) by hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk) with local-esmtp id 1RQGjP-0001M9-SG (Exim 4.67) (return-path <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Tue, 15 Nov 2011 10:59:11 +0000
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 10:59:11 +0000
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
X-X-Sender: fanf2@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
In-Reply-To: <20111115025746.26808.qmail@joyce.lan>
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.00.1111151057160.5322@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <20111115025746.26808.qmail@joyce.lan>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LSU 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: Tony Finch <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>
Cc: sm+ietf@elandsys.com, apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Feedback on draft-moonesamy-smtp-ipv6-00
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 10:59:16 -0000

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
>
> 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.

This is a point of repeated disagreement and there is no accepted
consensus. When they get a 4yz, some SMTP implementations will immediately
re-try delivery on the other hosts, and only queue the message for later
delivery if none of the hosts will take the message.

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot@dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/
Shannon: Southeasterly 5 to 7, veering southwesterly 4 or 5 in west. Moderate
or rough. Rain or showers. Moderate or poor, occasionally good later.