RE: New SMTP response codes

"Jeff Stephenson (Exchange)" <jeffstep@exchange.microsoft.com> Wed, 14 May 1997 17:14 UTC

Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa01091; 14 May 97 13:14 EDT
Received: from mail.proper.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa12779; 14 May 97 13:14 EDT
Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) id JAA02611 for ietf-smtp-bks; Wed, 14 May 1997 09:46:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from doggate.microsoft.com (doggate.microsoft.com [131.107.2.63]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA02604; Wed, 14 May 1997 09:46:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by DOGGATE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id <KZ8383KL>; Wed, 14 May 1997 09:46:40 -0700
Message-ID: <B0837A2A72C8D01181CB00805FD459C80BABF8@POPDOG>
From: "Jeff Stephenson (Exchange)" <jeffstep@exchange.microsoft.com>
To: 'John C Klensin' <klensin@mci.net>, "Paul E. Hoffman" <phoffman@imc.org>
Cc: ietf-smtp@imc.org
Subject: RE: New SMTP response codes
Date: Wed, 14 May 1997 09:46:39 -0700
X-Priority: 3
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3)
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: owner-ietf-smtp@imc.org
Precedence: bulk

I like this idea.  I've been thinking that it would be useful to have
some response code that says "Here's the basic status of the response -
check the extended errors if you care about more."  It might even be
useful to define 2x9, 3x9, 4x9, and 5x9 responses which give the more
informative category of response but then refer to the extended codes.
This would provide more detailed information to software which looks at
the second digit, as '9' is not a legitimate category under the SMTP
theory of reply codes.

John - would this be appropriate to include in your 821bis draft, or is
it out of scope?  If it can't go into 821bis, what would be the best way
to proceed?

-- jeff 


> -----Original Message-----
> From:	John C Klensin [SMTP:klensin@mci.net]
> Sent:	Wednesday, May 14, 1997 3:44 AM
> To:	Paul E. Hoffman
> Cc:	ietf-smtp@imc.org
> Subject:	Re: New SMTP response codes
> 
> 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
>