IETF Logo Mail Archive

[ietf-smtp] SMTP, DSNs, and enhanced replies (was: Re: SMTP server reply extensions)

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Wed, 08 April 2020 17:34 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.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 2FF5B3A149D for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 10:34:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 qdHVQAgB4s9j for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 10:34:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A4213A1499 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 10:34:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1jMEb4-0008ZL-2X for ietf-smtp@ietf.org; Wed, 08 Apr 2020 13:34:42 -0400
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2020 13:34:35 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
Message-ID: <1BE9F552230DB5474E736740@PSB>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/Pc7TZVFeQuSYbORreLHoPgQUkLc>
Subject: [ietf-smtp] SMTP, DSNs, and enhanced replies (was: Re: SMTP server reply extensions)
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: Wed, 08 Apr 2020 17:34:45 -0000

Hi.

This note is just for information and documentation -- no action
required or requested until we have a WG.

Thinking about my recent response to Jeremy and Timo raised
another question about 5321bis: 

Given that the DSN extensions, the DSN model, and the Enhanced
Status Codes are widely implemented and used, should 5321bis
incorporate them or at least reference them normatively?   If
the latter and maybe even if 5321bis ignores them, they are
another candidate for inclusion in the Applicability Statement.

The working copy of 5321bis Appendix G has been modified to add
the above to the list.

best,
  john

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email