> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:owner-ietf- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of John C Klensin > Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 8:15 AM > To: [email protected]; SMTP Interest Group > Subject: Re: Changing RFC 5322 guidance about crlf.crlf response delay > > I note, again fwiw, that I've been trying to get various > advocates for a ban (or near-ban) on NDNs to write that separate > document and propose a specific model at regular intervals since > well before 2821 was completed.
I'm new to that particular topic. Can you explain its motivation or point me to a discussion thread that lays it out so I can get some context? > "Long delays after the <CRLF>.<CRLF> is received can > result in timeouts and duplicate messages. Deferring > detailed message analysis until after the SMTP > connection has closed can result in non-delivery > notifications, possibly sent to incorrect addresses. A > receiver-SMTP MUST carefully balance these two > considerations, i.e., the time required to respond to > the final <CRLF>.<CRLF> end of data indicator and the > desirable goal of rejecting undeliverable or > unacceptable messages at SMTP time." I like this text. I think it reflects current operational realities quite nicely.
