#17: Extension validity for both SMPT and Submit
----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
Reporter: sm+i...@… | Owner:
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone:
Component: rfc1652bis | Version:
Severity: - | Keywords:
----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
Comments about RFC 1652bis posted by Alessandro Vesely on 25 Jan 2010
Should section 2 mention that the extension is valid for both SMTP and
Submit? I haven't got that bit quite straight, yet...
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam/current/msg00331.html
Follow-up by Dave Crocker posted on 11 Feb 2010
Given that an extension like this declares its intended venue -- note
"/SMTP/ Service Extension" I would guess that it should also declare other
venues that it is valid for. So yeah, it might be appropriate to have it
declare that it's for Submit, also.
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam/current/msg00344.html
Follow-up by Alexey Melnikov posted on 11 Fen 2010
Newer SMTP extensions explicitly declare themselve as suitable (or not
suitable) for Submit. I personally don't see any issue with that.
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam/current/msg00345.html
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/yam/trac/ticket/17>
yam <http://tools.ietf.org/yam/>
_______________________________________________
yam mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
