Re: [ietf-smtp] [Emailcore] Proposed ESMTP keyword RCPTLIMIT

Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no> Tue, 20 April 2021 09:39 UTC

Return-Path: <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
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 B197A3A1A61 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Apr 2021 02:39:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=gulbrandsen.priv.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 Vnp7TbCGpzZ1 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Apr 2021 02:39:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stabil.gulbrandsen.priv.no (stabil.gulbrandsen.priv.no [IPv6:2a01:4f8:191:91a8::3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B4C83A1A60 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Apr 2021 02:39:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stabil.gulbrandsen.priv.no (stabil.gulbrandsen.priv.no [IPv6:2a01:4f8:191:91a8::3]) by stabil.gulbrandsen.priv.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1999BC0072; Tue, 20 Apr 2021 10:47:09 +0100 (IST)
Authentication-Results: stabil.gulbrandsen.priv.no; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=gulbrandsen.priv.no
Authentication-Results: stabil.gulbrandsen.priv.no; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gulbrandsen.priv.no; s=mail; t=1618912029; bh=eefP1lLVtZv9bN9uyU9DhoVusXXtZCscwp4VT7anvhE=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=kAIXqyvk5Dyheag0FwkIpQmX6VA2r7h/fESeOH4w4HShGqrDKbC5jfpvu6K1QPgEG lsrlsVM6NGk+AQUqHdnGrqALyAhdM9J+k8dv8sf6D5EX2LiTNqhFt4nOVlpgctYNaM 03wI+xKfnOvvYK2eOezeVvLEMiCb2cJUvg0j2wds=
Received: from arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no by stabil.gulbrandsen.priv.no (Archiveopteryx 3.2.0) with esmtpsa id 1618912028-23911-23908/9/39; Tue, 20 Apr 2021 09:47:08 +0000
From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
To: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2021 11:39:25 +0200
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <dfd3a166-7eef-4d55-9185-c5f657ef0a0e@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
In-Reply-To: <F8AC11B4-1C30-4DE6-AE70-F91994EE7539@wordtothewise.com>
References: <cone.1615844513.220592.51342.1004@monster.email-scan.com> <20210315234648.563C0708B340@ary.qy> <CAO=DXp-+fJwsNegzu3zgwDLtCcSF104AUF=i+_GMgSYVBAKjWg@mail.gmail.com> <01RY24IJ225Q0085YQ@mauve.mrochek.com> <CAO=DXp-VSxeTsWZFAms7WX-jonkSiyGgKV5T_17VGhq6bcsMdg@mail.gmail.com> <cone.1618877363.380527.55051.1004@monster.email-scan.com> <F8AC11B4-1C30-4DE6-AE70-F91994EE7539@wordtothewise.com>
User-Agent: Trojita/0.7; Qt/5.11.3; xcb; Linux; Devuan GNU/Linux 3 (beowulf)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/fGBq3uIJsEMAdsZ5sI5lW6xdK1A>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] [Emailcore] Proposed ESMTP keyword RCPTLIMIT
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, 20 Apr 2021 09:39:35 -0000

On Tuesday 20 April 2021 11:17:09 CEST, Laura Atkins wrote:
> I don’t think a discussion about why or if it’s sensible will 
> make any difference.

Agree. But I'll note that sensible technical reasons do exist. If a system 
is written with short-lived connections in mind (which can be a good idea 
or a bad one), supporting long-lived connections may be more trouble than 
it's worth, in several ways. Both in terms of time and in terms of actions 
done via that connection.

Arnt