IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: RSET scope issue

kaih@khms.westfalen.de (Kai Henningsen) Thu, 17 August 2000 16:19 UTC

Received: from cs.utk.edu (CS.UTK.EDU [128.169.94.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA29524 for <drums-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 12:19:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by cs.utk.edu with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id MAA05979; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 12:19:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by cs.utk.edu (bulk_mailer v1.13); Thu, 17 Aug 2000 12:19:11 -0400
Received: by cs.utk.edu (cf v2.9s-UTK) id MAA05962; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 12:19:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailout03.sul.t-online.com (marvin@localhost) by cs.utk.edu with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id MAA05949; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 12:19:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailout03.sul.t-online.com (194.25.134.81 -> mailout03.sul.t-online.com) by cs.utk.edu (smtpshim v1.0); Thu, 17 Aug 2000 12:19:07 -0400
Received: from fmrl00.sul.t-online.de by mailout03.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 13PSNk-00039l-01; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 18:19:04 +0200
Received: from khms.westfalen.de (340048396503-0001@[62.155.165.75]) by fmrl00.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 13PSNf-0h91loC; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 18:18:59 +0200
Received: from root by khms.westfalen.de with local-bsmtp (Exim 3.12 #1) id 13PSNY-00077v-04 (Debian); Thu, 17 Aug 2000 18:18:52 +0200
Received: by khms.westfalen.de (CrossPoint v3.12d.kh5 R/C435); 17 Aug 2000 18:13:21 +0200
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 19:42:00 +0200
From: kaih@khms.westfalen.de
To: drums@cs.utk.edu
Message-ID: <7k0eTtZHw-B@khms.westfalen.de>
In-Reply-To: <4003837.3175353146@nifty-jr.west.sun.com>
Subject: Re: RSET scope issue
X-Mailer: CrossPoint v3.12d.kh5 R/C435
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Organization: Organisation? Me?! Are you kidding?
References: <Pine.SOL.4.21.0008150855480.17461-100000@draco.cus.cam.ac.uk> <4003837.3175353146@nifty-jr.west.sun.com>
X-No-Junk-Mail: I do not want to get *any* junk mail.
Comment: Unsolicited commercial mail will incur an US$100 handling fee per received mail.
X-Fix-Your-Modem: +++ATS2=255&WO1
X-Sender: 340048396503-0001@t-dialin.net
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:drums-request@cs.utk.edu?Subject=unsubscribe>

cnewman@innosoft.com (Chris Newman)  wrote on 15.08.00 in <4003837.3175353146@nifty-jr.west.sun.com>:

> --On Tuesday, August 15, 2000 9:03 +0100 Philip Hazel <ph10@cus.cam.ac.uk>
> wrote:
> > usually "specify", and the use of the future tense reads oddly.) Here is
> > a minor revision:
> >
> >    This command causes the current mail transaction to be aborted. It
> >    resets the state to what it was at the beginning of the transaction.
> >    The state of the connection itself is not affected. Any stored sender
> >    .... etc.
>
> I object to this proposed change.
>
> Take command sequence:
>
> MAIL FROM:<loser@nowhere.org>
> MAIL FROM:<bozo@somewhere.com>
> RSET
>
> Unless we explicitly add language to the SMTP spec which states that a
> "MAIL FROM" MUST return a 503 error when a transaction is in progress, then

4.1.1.2 ... In general, the MAIL command may be sent only when no mail  
transaction is in progress ...

4.1.4 makes this a MUST NOT, and says that a 501 MUST be returned and the  
server MUST stay in the same state. (503 is for commands that don't start  
a transaction.)

> the second sentence in the proposed text is factually incorrect (or at best

... so it actually *is* factually correct.

> in a gray area).  Given what 821 says about "MAIL FROM" doing an implied
> reset and the fact 503 is not listed as a valid response to "MAIL" in 821,
> I can't see a justification for such a drastic reversal.

Incidentally, 821 has almost exactly the same text ("must ... 501 ... same  
state", page 27).

> Given how hard it is to get wording right in this area and how late we are,
> I'd prefer to just delete the offending sentence and be done with it.

Does the above take care of your objection?

MfG Kai

v2.14.0 | Report a Bug | By Email