Re: Last Call: <draft-klensin-smtp-521code-05.txt> (SMTP 521 and 556 Reply Codes) to Proposed Standard

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Sat, 07 March 2015 02:22 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.com>
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 EE6BB1A87AD for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 18:22:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.862
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.862 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 XTCYTpyDg7kG for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 18:22:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AFA941A87A5 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 18:22:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 20438 invoked from network); 7 Mar 2015 02:22:16 -0000
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (64.57.183.18) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 7 Mar 2015 02:22:16 -0000
Date: Sat, 07 Mar 2015 02:21:54 -0000
Message-ID: <20150307022154.22751.qmail@ary.lan>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-klensin-smtp-521code-05.txt> (SMTP 521 and 556 Reply Codes) to Proposed Standard
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwZY5n4U4knKu4ghmJZXRWhT5TdpSAEsgc77C4RW2uuOUw@mail.gmail.com>
Organization:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/VZbF6a0bBOVP-zQJXOaTQCS4FoQ>
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: Sat, 07 Mar 2015 02:22:21 -0000

>   Many Internet hosts are not in a position -- whether technically,
>   operationally, or administratively-- to offer email service.  If an
>   SMTP client (sender) attempts to open a mail connection to a system
>   that does not have an SMTP server, the connection attempt will time
>   out.

How about just making it "will be rejected or time out."

  SMTP requires that timeouts result in the client queuing the

"that timeouts" -> "that such failures"

>   message and retrying it for an extended period.  That behavior will
>   result in wasted resources and long delays in getting an error
>   message back to its originator.

It's shorter, says what needs to be said.

R's,
John