Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id NAA28168; Wed, 31 May 1995 13:04:15 -0400 X-Resent-To: drums@CS.UTK.EDU ; Wed, 31 May 1995 13:04:13 EDT Errors-to: owner-drums@CS.UTK.EDU Received: from wintermute.imsi.com by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id NAA28161; Wed, 31 May 1995 13:04:07 -0400 Received: from relay.imsi.com by wintermute.imsi.com id NAA23578; Wed, 31 May 1995 13:03:51 -0400 Received: from snark.imsi.com by relay.imsi.com id NAA20564; Wed, 31 May 1995 13:03:50 -0400 Received: by snark.imsi.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA19737; Wed, 31 May 95 13:03:50 EDT Message-Id: <9505311703.AA19737@snark.imsi.com> To: John Gardiner Myers Cc: drums@CS.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: RFC 821 problem list In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 31 May 1995 12:42:13 EDT." Reply-To: perry@imsi.com X-Reposting-Policy: redistribute only with permission Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 13:03:49 -0400 From: "Perry E. Metzger" John Gardiner Myers writes: > The 522 reply code identifies a *transient* condition--the error is > likely to go away if the RCPT command is retried in a separate > transaction. The condition should instead be assigned a 4XX reply > code. That would break current systems, wouldn't it? > The "send", "saml", "soml", and "turn" commands are obsolete. TURN isn't used much, but SEND and company do have uses -- see the most recent RFC on using pagers in the tpc.int environment for an example on how people are using the command. Perry