Re: [ietf-smtp] SMTP Reply code 1yz Positive Preliminary reply

Paul Smith <paul@pscs.co.uk> Fri, 06 March 2020 09:08 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@pscs.co.uk>
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 D94D03A0AA1 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Mar 2020 01:08:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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_PASS=-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=pscs.co.uk
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 zJo08bmz-uD0 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Mar 2020 01:08:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.pscs.co.uk (mail.pscs.co.uk [195.224.19.137]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 45CA43A0AA6 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Mar 2020 01:08:34 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: mail.pscs.co.uk; spf=none; auth=pass (cram-md5) smtp.auth=pscs
Received: from lmail.pscs.co.uk ([192.168.66.70]) by mail.pscs.co.uk ([10.224.19.137] running VPOP3) with ESMTPSA (TLSv1.2 ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Mar 2020 09:08:31 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pscs.co.uk; q=dns/txt; s=lmail; h=Subject:To:References:From:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:In-Reply-To :Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Reply-to:Sender; t=1583485343; x=1584090143; bh=WMNXIJFYqiqDgbEqVwGM7R0d5YeEX5/6oqIpHFzYlhw=; b=P7iQ8v2FyOWrpI1VgZEn0il/4K3lr1MOOfCYCYzSCqEyI/dOQeysBnoXSmwYeY1X0Z7Ywhwd T+M9ijSdWMRyWxWUThGhBthT4u47IMQxiHlV9SxkSKG/2+J2AgfgcSW4w2zsEDhMqoXSuQ4Ofs eRWnYxbHuomn+hPoCLQnludnY=
Authentication-Results: lmail.pscs.co.uk; spf=none; auth=pass (cram-md5) smtp.auth=paul
Received: from [192.168.66.100] ([192.168.66.100]) by lmail.pscs.co.uk ([192.168.66.70] running VPOP3) with ESMTPSA (TLSv1.2 ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Mar 2020 09:02:21 -0000
To: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
References: <1583290845.3368.15.camel@gmail.com> <aedd19df-c406-2513-934e-4498ae159964@pscs.co.uk> <5E6128C8.7070001@isdg.net> <5E613D31.70301@isdg.net> <CFEDA025D86BD13BB8D15A56@PSB> <5E61B94D.9020104@isdg.net>
From: Paul Smith <paul@pscs.co.uk>
Message-ID: <466b05c4-8db2-b0d8-8e87-8e8034aea97b@pscs.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2020 09:02:21 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5E61B94D.9020104@isdg.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-GB
X-Authenticated-Sender: paul
X-Server: VPOP3 Enterprise V7.10 - Registered
X-Organisation: Paul Smith Computer Services
X-VPOP3Tester: 12 345
X-Authenticated-Sender: pscs
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/pUnGp5ymN_2FxYPOiDrFl1H--Rg>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] SMTP Reply code 1yz Positive Preliminary reply
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: Fri, 06 Mar 2020 09:08:42 -0000

On 06/03/2020 02:45, Hector Santos wrote:
> John K, regarding the Timeouts, I was more facetious than serious 
> here. However, there are situations we already talked about in the 
> past. We could highlight some of them, but I believe the main one was 
> the 5 mins after the transaction was completed and a RSET/MAIL can 
> start a new transaction.

I thought the main one was with delays after the the terminating '.', 
where the client is meant to wait 10 minutes for the server 
acknowledgement, but usually gives up a lot sooner than that, leading to 
duplicate messages.



-- 


Paul Smith Computer Services
Tel: 01484 855800
Vat No: GB 685 6987 53

Sign up for news & updates at http://www.pscs.co.uk/go/subscribe