![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
At 8:44 PM +0100 1/17/07, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
I haven't seen that possibility raised. I'm somewhat skeptical that it would be an improvement (it makes the delay before error reporting variable), but it's worth a discussion. WG?(3) In section 4.3: the risk should be minimized by the fact that the selection of submission servers are presumably under the control of the sender's client and the selection of potential intermediate relays is under the control of the administration of the final delivery server.
[snip]
For situations in which a client encounters a server that does not support UTF8SMTP, there are basically two possibilities:
o Reject the message or generate and send a non-delivery message,
[snip]
o Figure out a way to downgrade the envelope or message body in
I apologize if this has already been discussed, but in light of the first quoted sentence, the two possible actions can be augmented by another approach: try an alternate MX host and/or requeue the message and try later. That is, because the mail path is normally under administrative control of the end points or their organizations, it may be reasonable to conclude that UTF8SMTP is normally supported along this path, and if a system is encountered which doesn't support it, this may be a temporary failure. Obviously, if this is tried but persistently fails, one of the other two methods must be used.
(This could also be mentioned in the smtpext document.)
the fact that the selection of submission servers are presumably under the control of the sender's client and the selection of potential intermediate relays is under the control of the administration of the final delivery server.
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.