search

ietf-wg-emailcore / emailcore

3 stars 0 forks source link

G.5. Remove or deprecate the work-around from code 552 to 452? #5

Closed ietf-svn-bot closed 3 years ago

ietf-svn-bot commented 3 years ago

keyword_SMTP owner:alexey.melnikov@isode.com resolution_fixed type_defect | by alexey.melnikov@isode.com

4.5.3.1.10. Too Many Recipients Code

RFC 821 [3] incorrectly listed the error where an SMTP server exhausts its implementation limit on the number of RCPT commands ("too many recipients") as having reply code 552. The correct reply code for this condition is 452. Clients SHOULD treat a 552 code in this case as a temporary, rather than permanent, failure so the logic below works.

The suggestion in Section 4.5.3.1.10 may have outlived its usefulness and/or be inconsistent with current practice. Should it be removed and/or explicitly deprecated?

Issue migrated from trac:5 at 2022-01-31 12:33:24 +0000

ietf-svn-bot commented 3 years ago

@alexey.melnikov@isode.com changed title from Remove or deprecate the work-around from code 552 to 452? to G.5. Remove or deprecate the work-around from code 552 to 452?

ietf-svn-bot commented 3 years ago

@alexey.melnikov@isode.com set component to smtp

ietf-svn-bot commented 3 years ago

@alexey.melnikov@isode.com commented

Discussion thread:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/emailcore/IREZktaUrAyUD1zbnl9x-5QR1vI/

ietf-svn-bot commented 3 years ago

@alexey.melnikov@isode.com changed status from new to assigned

ietf-svn-bot commented 3 years ago

@alexey.melnikov@isode.com set owner to alexey.melnikov@isode.com

ietf-svn-bot commented 3 years ago

@alexey.melnikov@isode.com commented

It looks like Viktor Dukhovni and Jeremy Harris are disagreeing with John Klensin that sending MTAs are treating 552 in response to RCPT TO as 452.

(As a participant) I agree with Viktor/Jeremy.

ietf-svn-bot commented 3 years ago

@alexey.melnikov@isode.com changed _comment0 which not transferred by tractive

ietf-svn-bot commented 3 years ago

@alexey.melnikov@isode.com commented

I think WG discussion reached agreement that the following sentence should be removed:

Clients SHOULD treat a 552 code in this case as a temporary, rather than permanent, failure so the logic below works.

ietf-svn-bot commented 3 years ago

@alexey.melnikov@isode.com commented

Implemented in -03.

ietf-svn-bot commented 3 years ago

@alexey.melnikov@isode.com changed status from assigned to closed

ietf-svn-bot commented 3 years ago

@alexey.melnikov@isode.com set resolution to fixed