Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) 
        by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id DAA27423; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 03:53:44 -0400
Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (bulk_mailer v1.6); Wed, 3 Jul 1996 03:53:39 -0400
Received: from domen.uninett.no (domen.uninett.no [129.241.131.10]) 
        by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id DAA27403; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 03:53:38 -0400
From: <Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no>
Received: from domen.uninett.no by domen.uninett.no with SMTP (PP) 
          id <11470-0@domen.uninett.no>; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 09:53:29 +0200
X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.5 12/11/95
To: djb@koobera.math.uic.edu (D. J. Bernstein)
cc: drums@cs.utk.edu
Subject: Re: low timeouts
In-reply-to: Your message of "02 Jul 1996 22:47:31 -0000." <19960702224731.9409.qmail@koobera.math.uic.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Wed, 03 Jul 1996 09:53:27 +0200
Message-ID: <11467.836380407@domen.uninett.no>
Sender: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no

Found the reference....RFC 1123 section 5.3.2

         o    Initial 220 Message: 5 minutes

              A Sender-SMTP process needs to distinguish between a
              failed TCP connection and a delay in receiving the initial
              220 greeting message.  Many receiver-SMTPs will accept a
              TCP connection but delay delivery of the 220 message until
              their system load will permit more mail to be processed.

I think adding text that says that (a) doing slow stuff before sending 220
is a Bad Idea and (b) some implementations won't wait that long
is a Good Thing.

                   harald A