Re: New SMTP response codes
John C Klensin <klensin@mci.net> Wed, 14 May 1997 11:05 UTC
Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa20972; 14 May 97 7:05 EDT
Received: from mail.proper.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa06604; 14 May 97 7:05 EDT
Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) id DAA27443 for ietf-smtp-bks; Wed, 14 May 1997 03:43:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from a4.jck.com (ns.jck.com [206.99.215.40]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id DAA27438; Wed, 14 May 1997 03:43:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tp7.reston.mci.net ("port 1373"@[166.55.54.236]) by a4.jck.com (PMDF V5.1-8 #21705) with SMTP id <0EA635KU1007QH@a4.jck.com>; Wed, 14 May 1997 06:44:12 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 14 May 1997 06:44:05 -0400
From: John C Klensin <klensin@mci.net>
Subject: Re: New SMTP response codes
To: "Paul E. Hoffman" <phoffman@imc.org>
Cc: ietf-smtp@imc.org
Reply-to: John C Klensin <klensin@mci.net>
Message-id: <SIMEON.9705140605.H@muahost.mci.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Simeon for Win32 Version 4.1.1 Build (14)
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET="US-ASCII"
X-Authentication: none
Sender: owner-ietf-smtp@imc.org
Precedence: bulk
On Tue, 13 May 1997 17:59:40 -0700 "Paul E. Hoffman" <phoffman@imc.org> wrote: > And now for something completely different. I needed a new SMTP response > code for an SMTP extension I'm writing. However, I could not find any > central registry of them. This seems to be a bit of a problem, because I > don't want to choose the same one that some other extension writer has > chosen. >... Paul, Unfotunately, we have a number of implementations that believe that the only valid codes are those that are in 821 -- every time a new one has been added, there has been trouble. Conversely, one or two implementations have promiscuously implemented all sorts of codes without documenting them. This was a reason why the "be prepared to use first digit only" rule went into RFC 1123 (perhaps the main reason). Consequently, much as a code registry would be a good idea --and IANA is probably the right place-- you might as well, in practice, just make something up and assume that only the first digit will be relevant. There is a case to be made for trying the following strategy: * Make up one more set of codes, e.g., 299, 399, 499, 599 And give them the definition "extended code of status/severity (2, 3, 4, 5), see extended reply code" and a phrase syntax of "n.n.n text". * Make absolutely sure that the definitions and extension mechanisms of RFC 1893 are adequate. --john
- New SMTP response codes Paul E. Hoffman
- Re: New SMTP response codes Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
- Re: New SMTP response codes John C Klensin
- Re: New SMTP response codes Ned Freed
- RE: New SMTP response codes Jeff Stephenson (Exchange)
- Re: RE: New SMTP response codes John C Klensin
- Reconnect/Retransmission Dave Crocker
- Re: New SMTP response codes Keith Moore