IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: HELO procedural notes

DRUMS WG Chair <chris.newman@innosoft.com> Thu, 27 July 2000 19:17 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 PAA04578 for <drums-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 15:17:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by cs.utk.edu with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id PAA25962; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 15:17:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by cs.utk.edu (bulk_mailer v1.13); Thu, 27 Jul 2000 15:16:57 -0400
Received: by cs.utk.edu (cf v2.9s-UTK) id PAA25945; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 15:16:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mercury.Sun.COM (marvin@localhost) by cs.utk.edu with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id PAA25932; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 15:16:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mercury.Sun.COM (192.9.25.1 -> mercury.Sun.COM) by cs.utk.edu (smtpshim v1.0); Thu, 27 Jul 2000 15:16:55 -0400
Received: from westmail2.West.Sun.COM ([129.153.100.30]) by mercury.Sun.COM (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA24136 for <drums@cs.utk.edu>; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 12:16:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nifty-jr.west.sun.com (nifty-jr.West.Sun.COM [129.153.12.95]) by westmail2.West.Sun.COM (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3/ENSMAIL, v1.7) with ESMTP id MAA03704 for <drums@cs.utk.edu>; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 12:16:51 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 12:16:16 -0700
From: DRUMS WG Chair <chris.newman@innosoft.com>
To: drums@cs.utk.edu
Subject: Re: HELO procedural notes
Message-ID: <5667759.3173688976@nifty-jr.west.sun.com>
In-Reply-To: <20000723191750.28598.qmail@cr.yp.to>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.0.3 (MacOS)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:drums-request@cs.utk.edu?Subject=unsubscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

--On Sunday, July 23, 2000 19:17 +0000 "D. J. Bernstein" <djb@cr.yp.to> 
wrote:
> ...
> In fact, according to Leiba's notes of the August 1998 meeting,
> ...
>
>    Consensus is that "SHOULD use EHLO" be dropped, and a client that
>    doesn't need extensions may use EHLO or HELO at the client's
>    discretion.
>
> That's consistent with discussions of the issue on the mailing list.
>
> So why does smtpupd-12 still say ``SHOULD preferentially utilize EHLO''?
> ...

Section 3.2 of smtpupd-09 (and later) complies with WG rough concensus from 
that meeting, including the goal of encouraging use of EHLO.

The editor's comments on this issue are in section X.1.9(iv).

I searched my archives for messages with "HELO" in the subject line. 
According to such messages, one person has objected to this text on at 
least two occasions.  In all cases there was no support expressed for the 
objection.  The chair concludes there is rough concensus that the current 
text is adequate for RFC publication and the issue is permanently closed.

		- DRUMS WG Chair

v2.35.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status