IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [taugh.com-standards] Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-appsawg-nullmx-06

wietse@porcupine.org (Wietse Venema) Thu, 04 September 2014 17:45 UTC

Return-Path: <wietse@porcupine.org>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 133421A010A for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 10:45:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.668
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.668 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668] autolearn=ham
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 d_kadQItMPeJ for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 10:45:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from spike.porcupine.org (spike.porcupine.org [168.100.189.2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C54BA1A00F5 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 10:45:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by spike.porcupine.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 3hpqDR55Mfzbcfr; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 13:45:27 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=porcupine.org; s=dktest; t=1409852727; bh=Y/Inr9Fhb14IV31OAzZ/fTu3SAICgieRteM08BRrPS0=; h=Subject:In-Reply-To:To:Date:CC:MIME-Version: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Message-Id:From; b=QfWNt+to183fnd4cHwu7DYPR4KcaXj2zHKpx+Uz4zwHRkZD8ACdQYd/6lV6T7WBD4 32pF+bg0XWplYQJ6c3jREtKbkRBEw+USuEvtuiS4KkwSjIXPyvjT0LznRcfn2n6e3Z 7ti9NnyDDIPNXckQIJvItYFwiff0b6mtC3DJZVHU=
Subject: Re: [taugh.com-standards] Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-appsawg-nullmx-06
In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.11.1409041232500.23605@joyce.lan>
To: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 13:45:27 -0400
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL124d (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Message-Id: <3hpqDR55Mfzbcfr@spike.porcupine.org>
From: wietse@porcupine.org
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/NHWb91Vp77bg4b7pmir1CfdAdMU
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 12:16:37 -0700
Cc: IETF general list <ietf@ietf.org>, Wietse Venema <wietse@porcupine.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 17:45:30 -0000

John R Levine:
> >> No, 550 to reject the MAIL FROM is correct.  See RFC 5321, sec 3.3.  It's
> >
> > My concern is with sending 521 after RCPT TO.  Sorry for coming
> > with this late in the process. I wasn't aware of the nullmx revival.
> 
> If you get 521 as a server greeting it means ...

Thanks, there was no need to repeat that another time.  I infer
from your response that you are not concerned about consistency
between 4XY and 5XY SMTP responses, not even when until now all X21
SMTP responses end a session whereas the proposed 521 does not.
And with that, I will leave this discussion.

	Wietse

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email