Re: RSET scope issue

[Chris Newman <[e-mail]>]

--On Tuesday, August 15, 2000 9:03 +0100 Philip Hazel <[e-mail]> 
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:<[e-mail]>
MAIL FROM:<[e-mail]>
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 
the second sentence in the proposed text is factually incorrect (or at best 
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.

Because a mail transaction is arguably part of the connection state, the 
third sentence could be seen as contradictory to the first sentence.

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.

		- Chris (speaking for myself only)