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

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

>>   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.

That seems to me to be the perfect level of change here, though I
would prefer the first be "will fail or time out", as there's no
active rejection going on (but I don't care enough to argue the point
further).

It's very important to remember that the purpose of what the document
is saying there is purely to give enough background for readers to
understand the purpose and usage of the codes.  Getting into finer
details of how SMTP works in these situations and debating too much
about whether "time out" is strictly and completely correct will just
distract from getting a simple, useful change in the status codes
standardized.

Barry