On 11 November 2015 at 23:33, Tony Finch <[email protected]> wrote: > Dave Cridland <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Well. If you're going to be picky... :-) > > FIGHT :-) > > "Sorry dear, I can't come to bed yet, someone on the internet is WRONG!"
> > Standard ESMTP doesn't allow pipelining at all, you'd need RFC 2920 > support > > for that > > Yeah, sorry, I used an ill-advised shorthand when I should have said ESMTP > plus common standard extensions. > > Well, yes; I'm not sure I've ever seen a server that doesn't handle pipelining, though I'm sure there's some obscure ones that don't. > But this is beside the point that SMTP is really weird from the TLS and > X.509 perspective in allowing multiple reference identities in one > transaction - no need to get funny with esoteric extensions. > > (Actually you don't even need one transaction, different transactions in > the same connection are enough. For a practical example, Gmail splits > transactions that span multiple recipient domains using temporary errors > like "451 4.3.0 Multiple destination domains per transaction is > unsupported. Please try again." But Gmail is OK if you use multiple > different domains in different transactions in the same connection. The > transaction splitting is probably for per-domain content policies, but it > cannot do anything to help X.509 validation.) > > Really? That's quite marvellously odd, but Google do like to bend standards to fit their choices. Which is why I need to change email address. > XMPP is much more straightforward for X.509 in that the connection says up > front that it is dealing with a single domain. > > Of course, we don't quite do that - piggybacking is just fine, but it's done post-facto, by the client deciding that it can already authenticate the connection for additional domains, and asking whether the reserve applies. So it remains a per-connection issue relating to service domains, rather than a per-transactional (or even per-recipient) case. > > > South Biscay, Southeast Fitzroy: Variable 3 or 4, becoming > > > southwesterly 4 or 5 later. Rough. Occasional drizzle. Good, > > > occasionally moderate. > > > > Quite surprised it's not worse. > > The fun is happening further north - see below. > > Just west of me - I'm Lundy, where it's a notch or two down. Only up to 9, high, rain, poor. > Tony. > -- > f.anthony.n.finch <[email protected]> http://dotat.at/ > Shannon, South Rockall: Southwesterly veering westerly later, 7 to severe > gale 9, increasing storm 10 or violent storm 11 later. Very rough or high, > becoming high or very high later. Rain or thundery showers. Moderate or > poor, occasionally good. >
