Re: [Emailcore] Ticket #5: G.5. Remove or deprecate the work-around from code 552 to 452?

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Mar 11, 2021, at 9:18 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
> 
> --On Thursday, March 11, 2021 11:52 -0500 Todd Herr
> <todd.herr=[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> (1) As I have suggested elsewhere, more explanatory
> cross-references in this over-complicated document would be a
> good idea.  So:
> 
> OLD:
> 	If an SMTP server has an implementation limit on the
> 	number of RCPT commands and this limit is exhausted,
> 
> NEW/PROPOSED:
> 	If an SMTP server has an implementation limit on the
> 	number of RCPT commands and this limit is exhausted (See
> 	Section 7.8),

This looks like a good idea to me.

> Comment:
> Section 7.8 ("Resistance to Attacks"), which explicitly mentions
> large numbers of recipients, is not quite right for this.  More
> generally, we've talked informally about flexibility for
> "operational necessity" for years (I even used that phrase in
> G.1) but it does not appear elsewhere in the document.  I think
> it would be helpful to clarity to re-title 7.8 to "Resistance to
> Attacks and Local Operational Requirements" (or something
> similar) and probably to add a sentence or two there that would
> indicate that attack resistance is not the only issue that might
> justify local restrictions.  If people agree, text welcome.
> 
> Alexey, I have tentatively added the above as G.15.  Unless no
> one agrees that the above is at least worth further discussion,
> please make a ticket.

https://trac.ietf.org/trac/emailcore/ticket/48

Best Regards,
Alexey