Re: [ietf-smtp] parsing SMTP replies

Laura Atkins <laura@wordtothewise.com> Tue, 23 March 2021 18:45 UTC

Return-Path: <laura@wordtothewise.com>
X-Original-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 643503A10E6 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 11:45:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.237
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.237 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_SBL_CSS=3.335, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=wordtothewise.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gKoBMgVjyT_z for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 11:45:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.wordtothewise.com (mail.wordtothewise.com [104.225.223.158]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA6203A10E4 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 11:45:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.227] (unknown [37.228.231.27]) by mail.wordtothewise.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 391DD9F149 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 11:45:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=wordtothewise.com; s=aardvark; t=1616525135; bh=f9JmMXLyu8sCe5m1RATRB2Vu3g9TRUyipR7tq1DJQZA=; h=From:Subject:Date:References:To:In-Reply-To:From; b=VxT/YC9+CYZ929DcZC1JL9ydS0t8LEj0ah5/H/usuUHAsb2cxeU2x8NmQWBScNTCL Br1/vIKbtCvBKjU/95gZTWStvpAjRtDOourwBiBaHf3S8RAn6IAJqyNEdTqHexgh9W lmPoCgy1seJuyrDoVvexP/+UXBNmwve+90M2x5fw=
From: Laura Atkins <laura@wordtothewise.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_A95F4DD7-F81A-47A6-901D-ED16159FC9F8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\))
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2021 18:45:33 +0000
References: <CF0247A810AF9482CBB155E8@PSB> <01RWP85B98S4005PTU@mauve.mrochek.com> <20210316061139.GA26514@kiel.esmtp.org> <0d5912b5-6aba-728b-00de-a75397ad8ad8@tana.it> <01RWRTQUWB8Q005PTU@mauve.mrochek.com> <4EC92B6CFDD4220E0F692CF0@PSB> <cone.1616031446.909688.90196.1004@monster.email-scan.com> <7d448367-d5a0-7baf-3df4-dcafe1859437@network-heretics.com> <6057EFF6.7030401@isdg.net> <EF538EC2-9D1F-4C05-948D-7CFA29052B3A@wordtothewise.com> <01RWYP9ZH87A0085YQ@mauve.mrochek.com> <508CEF44080BF43456FE8548@PSB>
To: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <508CEF44080BF43456FE8548@PSB>
Message-Id: <907E9A18-B3CC-4AD5-BF7C-14ED0AAF29FE@wordtothewise.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/-F0dda6WeJRFYySSzwEsn6J6bqE>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] parsing SMTP replies
X-BeenThere: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of issues related to Simple Mail Transfer Protocol \(SMTP\) \[RFC 821, RFC 2821, RFC 5321\]" <ietf-smtp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf-smtp>, <mailto:ietf-smtp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf-smtp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-smtp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-smtp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp>, <mailto:ietf-smtp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2021 18:45:41 -0000


> On 22 Mar 2021, at 18:23, John C Klensin <john@jck.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> --On Monday, March 22, 2021 08:57 -0700 Ned Freed
> <ned.freed@mrochek.com> wrote:
> 
>> ...
>> It's somewhat temping to add some sort of "the MXes pointing
>> at this server can be rolled up" indicator to the limits
>> specification, but since it's not a limit it doesn't really
>> fit. If done it needs to be a separate EHLO announcement.
>> ...
> 
> Ned, Laura,
> 
> Just a thought, based on little thinking and less information:
> Are there any plausible circumstances in which a system might
> want to encourage rolling up a few MXs but not very many?

I can’t think of any off the top of my head. I think you’d either want everything rolled up or nothing. But I’m not handling large incoming volumes, so there may be. 

>  If
> so, that would turn it into a limit, rather than requiring a
> separate announcement keyword.  I'm having trouble imagining
> such a case, so, if the answer is "no", don't bother with a
> detailed explanation.   However, because I think there is value
> in minimizing the number of announcements, the question seems
> worth asking.

I would agree with you here. 

laura 

-- 
Having an Email Crisis?  We can help! 800 823-9674 

Laura Atkins
Word to the Wise
laura@wordtothewise.com
(650) 437-0741		

Email Delivery Blog: https://wordtothewise.com/blog