Re: [ietf-smtp] draft-freed-smtp-limits

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

Ack.  And thanks.

And, fwiw, I'd prefer to see it handled in 8126bis and that
level of detail torn out of 5321bis.  If we are seeing multiple
places where that model is useful, SMTP is really not the best
place for the description.

   john


--On Friday, August 4, 2023 17:10 -0400 John Levine
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> It appears that John C Klensin  <[e-mail]> said:
>> requirements for those registries.  So, unless we want LIMITs
>> and its parameters to be unique among extensions, either I
>> need to write some tricky text, or we need to create a
>> normative reference to 5321bis (holding up publication of
>> this), or the either long-promised revision to 8126 or the
>> long-threatened update to it to include just that option (an
>> I-D I started on two weeks ago when I noticed the "need to do
>> something about this" note in 5321bis).   Thoughts?
> 
> I'd rather wait for 5321bis and then handle it normally.  Think
> if it as another nudge to get 5321bis out the door.
> 
> I've implemented it as a plugin in my mail server (the obscure
> but respectable mailfront.)  As you might expect, it wasn't
> hard.
> 
> R's,
> John