Author: Kjetil Torgrim Homme Date: To: exim-users Subject: Re: [Exim] RFC2920 and synchronization errors
On Mon, 2004-04-26 at 11:09 +0100, Matthew Byng-Maddick wrote: > What that second paragraph explicitly *doesn't* say is:
> | Client SMTP implementations that employ pipelining MUST check ALL
> | statuses associated with each command in a group before sending the
> | next group.
do you think any further changes to the text are needed?
I think the intent of the RFC is quite clear, and the intent of the law
is as important as the letter of the law -- at least in my jurisdiction.
in particular the use of the term "synchronization point" supports the
clarification you are suggesting. although the term is not defined in
the RFC, common usage would dictate that you must wait for statuses if
the last command in the group is a NOOP. not that it helps much, since
the "abusive" client simply wouldn't use NOOP :-). still, we've lived
with far worse wording in many other RFCs.
take it to IESG and let them decide if a fixed RFC is needed. IMHO it's
not a cause of concern for Exim.
