On Thu, 7 Jan 1999, James FitzGibbon wrote:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-09.txt
>
> I'm not sure how many people on the list have read this draft, but it's
> rather interesting. Basically, it aims to consolidate RFCs 821, 974,
> 1035, 1123 and the SMTP Extension RFCs into a single document. It's sort
> of momentous in that when it becomes an RFC, it will make RFC821 obsolete
> for the first time in 17 years.
I haven't read this draft yet, but I've read the previous ones, and have
occasionally contributed to the discussion that has been going on (for
far too long!)
> I haven't noticed anything that needs to be changed in Exim to make it
> comply with the specification,
Phew!
> but there are a few places where
> documentation could do with an update. For example:
Tricky to know exactly how far to go with that kind of thing, but the
particular case you quote is probably worth noting.
> The draft would also allow a few older features to be removed from Exim
> without losing compliance. A "minimum" implementation of an SMTP server
> is no longer required to support the VRFY command.
Oh, there were endless religious wars about VRFY. I must take a look at
what the current draft now says.
> There are also a
> number of changes to "default" actions that servers should take,
> especially on the topic of source routing.
It's time that got abolished, IMHO!
--
Philip Hazel University of Cambridge Computing Service,
ph10@??? Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714.
--
*** Exim information can be found at
http://www.exim.org/ ***
