--On Wednesday, 17 January, 2007 12:25 -0800 Randall Gellens
<randy@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>....
>>> (This could also be mentioned in the smtpext document.)
>>>
>> 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?
>
> If it is a temporary failure, and the message is sent
> successfully after retrying, then it was a good thing to do.
> If there is always an ASCII-only SMTP server in the path, then
> retrying only adds delay to the failure. So: is it advisable
> for a system to be optimistic that the message will be able to
> be sent? I think so, as the document says:
>
> 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.
>
> This makes the most sense when sending non-ASCII to non-ASCII,
> I think. It also makes sense when sending ASCII to non-ASCII
> and the sender's submission server is UT8SMTP compliant. I'd
> probably not do it when sending non-ASCII to ASCII.
>
> In any event, I think this is a quality-of-implementation
> thing: it should be suggested by the documents but certainly
> not required for compliance.
Speaking for myself only, I'd prefer to see this mentioned in
the downgrade document, and maybe in the SMTPext one, but not in
Framework. In any event, I'd recommend/request that you specify
text and where it should go.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf