Re: draft-rose-pop3-again-02.txt

Marshall Rose <> Wed, 22 June 1994 01:36 UTC

Received: from by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa16417; 21 Jun 94 21:36 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa16413; 21 Jun 94 21:36 EDT
Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa21184; 21 Jun 94 21:36 EDT
Received: (from postman@localhost) by (8.6.7/8.6.6) id VAA02282; Tue, 21 Jun 1994 21:27:22 -0400
Received: via switchmail for; Tue, 21 Jun 1994 21:27:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from via qmail ID </afs/>; Tue, 21 Jun 1994 21:25:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.6.7/8.6.6) with ESMTP id VAA02248 for <>; Tue, 21 Jun 1994 21:25:08 -0400
Received: from by (5.65/3.1.090690) id AA26120; Tue, 21 Jun 94 18:22:55 -0700
To: Mark Crispin <>
Subject: Re: draft-rose-pop3-again-02.txt
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 21 Jun 1994 16:10:56 PDT." <MailManager.772240256.8186.mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Id: <>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 1994 18:22:51 -0700
Message-Id: <>
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Marshall Rose <>

I'll let John respond to most of your comments, I'll comment on just a few.

In general, it would be helpful for you to review the draft with respect
to a minimalist philosophy.  The goals are: simplicity and minimal
footprint on the server.  Presumably other protocols will be less
simple and have larger footprints.

> Just for my edification, why doesn't POP3 have an equivalent to the IMAP4
> CAPABILITY command, and why doesn't POP3 have more command completion codes
> than just +OK and -ERR?  I remember being badly beaten up on these sorts of
> issues with IMAP, and am bewildered to see that nothing has been done with
> either with POP.


> Is -ERR really a ``success indicator''?  [Page 3]

Yes, a success indicator tells you whether you were successful or not.

> ``Hence a multi-line response is terminated with the five octets''... seems to
> be restating the obvious and is confusing in the context of the previous
> sentence.  [Page 3]

Then why did people ask for it?

> Why isn't a server permitted to give
> 	-ERR I can't talk with you now
> as a greeting?  (Equivalent to IMAP4 BYE as a greeting) [Page 4]

Because it is simpler for the server to not accept new connections.

> Page 17 is awfully mealy-mouthed about the message size.  Is it a reliable
> indicator of the RFC822 message size in Internet text format, or isn't it?

Minimal server footprint.