IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: List of ESMTP extensions

"D. J. Bernstein" <djb@cr.yp.to> Sat, 11 April 1998 23:00 UTC

Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.8/8.7.3) id QAA03153 for ietf-smtp-bks; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 16:00:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from koobera.math.uic.edu (qmailr@koobera.math.uic.edu [131.193.178.247]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.8/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA03149 for <ietf-smtp@imc.org>; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 16:00:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 13662 invoked by uid 666); 11 Apr 1998 23:02:43 -0000
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1998 23:02:43 -0000
Message-ID: <19980411230243.13660.qmail@cr.yp.to>
From: "D. J. Bernstein" <djb@cr.yp.to>
To: ietf-smtp@imc.org
Subject: Re: List of ESMTP extensions
References: <980410120821.203d525d@Cisco.COM>
X-Mutt-References: <980410120821.203d525d@Cisco.COM>
Sender: owner-ietf-smtp@imc.org
Precedence: bulk

Dan Wing writes:
> RFC1869 seems to indicate that VRFY is required and thus doesn't need
> to be advertised in an EHLO response.

Sorry---I assumed the question was about the real world, not the RFCs.

> We will likely drop the proposal anyways in favor of 
> draft-ietf-fax-mdn-features-01.txt, anyways, but if you're honestly
> interested in a justification for draft-ietf-fax-smtp-capabilities I 
> can give you several.

Yes, I have a morbid interest in the sources of engineering disasters.

---Dan
Smaller, faster, safer than inetd+tcpd. http://pobox.com/~djb/ucspi-tcp.html

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email