Re: New SMTP response codes
Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu> Wed, 21 May 1997 02:31 UTC
Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa15392; 20 May 97 22:31 EDT
Received: from mail.proper.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa19074; 20 May 97 22:31 EDT
Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) id TAA21309 for ietf-smtp-bks; Tue, 20 May 1997 19:13:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from spot.cs.utk.edu (SPOT.CS.UTK.EDU [128.169.92.189]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id TAA21304; Tue, 20 May 1997 19:13:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cs.utk.edu by spot.cs.utk.edu with ESMTP (cf v2.11c-UTK) id WAA04267; Tue, 20 May 1997 22:14:02 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <199705210214.WAA04267@spot.cs.utk.edu>
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0gamma 1/27/96
X-URI: http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/
From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
To: "Paul E. Hoffman" <phoffman@imc.org>
cc: ietf-smtp@imc.org, moore@cs.utk.edu
Subject: Re: New SMTP response codes
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 13 May 1997 17:59:40 PDT." <v0310282eaf9ebd82fe9d@[165.227.249.100]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 22:13:58 -0400
Sender: owner-ietf-smtp@imc.org
Precedence: bulk
just catching up on my mail after a week's vacation... random thoughts on defining new SMTP response codes: 1. IANA should maintain the list of response codes. 2. The new SMTP document being written by DRUMS should specify the registration procedure. (offhand, I'd suggest that the code has to be defined in a standards-track or experimental RFC with IESG approval) 3. New SMTP codes should probably be defined only when necessary for the the server to notify the client of a state transition....not just for new kinds of errors. RFC 1893 codes, along with the ENHANCEDSTATUSCODES option, should be used to communicate new kinds of errors where no new state changes are introduced. 4. There's no problem with defining new SMTP codes if those codes will only be generated by servers that claim to support a particular ESMTP option, and only when a client explicitly invokes that option. Otherwise, there needs to be a really good reason for defining a new code...like a state change. Keith
- 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