Re: [yam] Ambiguities in RFC 5321

[John C Klensin <john at jck.com>]

Get it on the YAM list (really soon -- before the prospectus
goes to the IESG).   I'm personally happy to spend the time to
clarify ambiguities, but don't know how others feel about it.

    john


--On Friday, 13 November, 2009 20:07 +0000 John Levine
<johnl at taugh.com> wrote:

> In the recent draft, I don't see anything one way or the other
> about dealing with ambiguities in the existing RFC.  While we
> certainly wouldn't want to change the protocol, it looks to me
> like there are a few places where we could clarify the
> language and, if need be, noting implementations have
> interpreted the language other ways.
> 
> In Section 3.1, a server can offer two greetings to a new
> connection, 220 or 554.  The semantics of the 554 are utterly
> unclear.  Plausible interpretations include:
> 
> a) This domain has rejected your mail, give up and report the
> message(s) as undeliverable, as though you got the 554 in
> response to DATA.
> 
> 554 YOU ARE BLACKLISTED. FOAD.
> 
> b) This server is broken, try others as though you couldn't
> connect to this one.
> 
> 554 MY NETAPP IS EMITTING SMOKE. SORRY.
> 
> c) This server is sort of broken, try others at the same MX
> priority but not lower.
> 
> 554 MY SPOOL DISK IS CURRENTLY FULL. SORRY.
> 
> I don't feel strongly about which is the right interpretation,
> but it would be nice to know how to code my mail clients.
> 
> R's,
> John
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> yam mailing list
> yam at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam