On Mon, 6 Sep 1999, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> <http://www.imc.org/draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd> -- you are mistaken,
> sir.
As was I in my previous posting. While RFC821 is at best vague on the
matter (my reading is that one can issue a 552 (excessive number of
recipients) for any number although you must be able to "cope" with SMTP
transaction involving at least 100 RCPTs. DRUMS however is very clear on
the matter (and a rather interesting read all round).
> See the section "recipients buffer" in the above URL, Ronald. (and
> perhaps you ought to hang onto the URL, so you don't guess and give
> out bad information next time)
Ronald was not the only person giving out bad information. I was too.
There is, of course, a question of the status for DRUMS. The document you
quote says.
INTERNET-DRAFT John C. Klensin, Editor
Expires July 1999
February 26, 1999
[...]
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet- Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
So, technically, Ronald and I might have a case based on a reading of the
vagueries of RFC821. However, since we all know that DRUMS will replace
821, and in this instance is clarifying something that was left vague in
821, I would agrue that people should be looking at DRUMS when configuring
their MTAs.
> it should return a 452 "too many recipients". They also allow for a
> 5xx reply, using 500, 501 or 552.
>
> (isn't looking it up fun?)
Point taken (even if it wasn't directed at me). I now have a local copy
of DRUMS along with 821, 822, 1123 and many others to inspect before I
start saying misleading things about the standards.
So which is more fun: consititution law or interpreting Internet standards :-)
-j
--
Jeffrey Goldberg +44 (0)1234 750 111 x 2826
Cranfield Computer Centre FAX 751 814
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://WWW.Cranfield.ac.uk/public/cc/cc047/
Relativism is the triumph of authority over truth, convention over justice.
