Closed ietf-svn-bot closed 3 years ago
@alexey.melnikov@isode.com changed title from Should 1yz Be Revisited?
to G.7.11. Should 1yz Be Revisited?
@alexey.melnikov@isode.com set component to smtp
@alexey.melnikov@isode.com commented
Started a 4 weeks call (ending on February 16th 2021) suggesting "no change", unless there is credible proposal in the form of a draft.
@alexey.melnikov@isode.com commented
Thread:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/emailcore/HJhfumrhi6bKRkzjkHHkmn46bDc/
@alexey.melnikov@isode.com changed status from new
to assigned
@alexey.melnikov@isode.com set owner to alexey.melnikov@isode.com
@alexey.melnikov@isode.com changed status from assigned
to closed
@alexey.melnikov@isode.com set resolution to wontfix
@alexey.melnikov@isode.com commented
No proposals were received, so this issue is now closed.
keyword_SMTP
owner:alexey.melnikov@isode.com
resolution_wontfix
type_task
| by alexey.melnikov@isode.comRFC 5321 depreciated the "positive preliminary reply" response code category with first digit "1", so that the first digit of valid SMTP response codes must be 2, 3, 4, or 5. It has been suggested (see mail from Hector Santos with Subject "SMTP Reply code 1yz Positive Preliminary reply", March 5, 2020 12:56 -0500, on the SMTP list) that these codes should be reinstated to deal with some situations that became more plausible after 5321 was published. Do we need to take this back up?
Issue migrated from trac:18 at 2022-01-31 12:34:46 +0000