IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Tue, 15 November 2011 11:12 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 348881F0C4C for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 03:12:13 -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 P+YtJyTZYhA9 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 03:12:12 -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 769B321F8F18 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 03:12:12 -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]:49696) by ppsw-50.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.157]:25) with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:fanf2) id 1RQGvz-0006YQ-s9 (Exim 4.72) (return-path <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Tue, 15 Nov 2011 11:12:11 +0000
Received: from fanf2 (helo=localhost) by hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk) with local-esmtp id 1RQGvz-0003dW-OI (Exim 4.67) (return-path <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Tue, 15 Nov 2011 11:12:11 +0000
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 11:12:11 +0000
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
X-X-Sender: fanf2@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk
To: "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1111151903240.41620@joyce.lan>
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.00.1111151108140.30178@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <20111115025746.26808.qmail@joyce.lan> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1111151057160.5322@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1111151903240.41620@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: 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 11:12:13 -0000

John R. Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
>
> Ah, right.  Can you suggest language that means "if you get a 4yz do whatever
> you do now."

It's already specified in RFC 5321:

   Although the capability to try multiple alternative addresses is
   required, specific installations may want to limit or disable the use
   of alternative addresses.  The question of whether a sender should
   attempt retries using the different addresses of a multihomed host
   has been controversial.  The main argument for using the multiple
   addresses is that it maximizes the probability of timely delivery,
   and indeed sometimes the probability of any delivery; the counter-
   argument is that it may result in unnecessary resource use.  Note
   that resource use is also strongly determined by the sending strategy
   discussed in Section 4.5.4.1.

I'm not sure what SM's draft is for, since RFC 3974 is obsoleted by RFC 5321
(even though the RFC index fails to say so).

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot@dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/
Trafalgar: Westerly or northwesterly 4 or 5, occasionally 6 in north at first,
becoming variable 3 later. Rough, occasionally moderate later. Thundery
showers. Moderate or good, occasionally poor.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email