Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) 
        by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id WAA10328; Fri, 18 Oct 1996 22:05:14 -0400
Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (bulk_mailer v1.7); Fri, 18 Oct 1996 22:01:57 -0400
Received:  
        by CS.UTK.EDU (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id WAA10030; Fri, 18 Oct 1996 22:01:53 -0400
Received: from muenster.westfalen.de (root@muenster.westfalen.de [193.174.5.2]) 
        by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id WAA10007; Fri, 18 Oct 1996 22:01:41 -0400
Received: by muenster.westfalen.de (/\oo/\ Smail3.1.29.1 #29.3)
	id <m0vEQJf-0005CsC@muenster.westfalen.de>; Sat, 19 Oct 96 03:35 MET DST
Received: by khms.westfalen.de (CrossPoint v3.1 R/C435);
	  19 Oct 1996 03:14:56 +0200
Date: 18 Oct 1996 23:25:00 +0200
From: kai@khms.westfalen.de (Kai Henningsen)
To: drums@cs.utk.edu
Message-ID: <6J6lWhhjcsB@khms.westfalen.de>
In-Reply-To: <01IARBXNCXCG9OCYBW@INNOSOFT.COM>
Subject: Re: regarding some ESMTP extensions...
X-Mailer: CrossPoint v3.1 R/C435
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Organization: Organisation? Me?! Are you kidding?
X-No-Junk-Mail: I do not want to get *any* junk mail.
Comment: Unsolicited commercial mail will incur an US$100 handling fee per received mail.

Ned.Freed@innosoft.com (Ned Freed)  wrote on 17.10.96 in <01IARBXNCXCG9OCYBW@INNOSOFT.COM>:

> > The ones I cannot find are: DSN, VERB, ONEX, XGEN, XSTA, and XADR.
>
> Specifically, the last three are proprietary SMTP extensions implemented by

[...]

> I believe ONEX is another proprietary extension implemented by sendmail, but

[...]

> VERB is almost certainly a reference to the kludgey BITNET VERB command. I

[...]

> Needless to say, none of this VERB/TICK stuff belongs anywhere near
> interactive SMTP, nor should it be appearing as an SMTP extension.

Nevertheless, it would be nice if stuff like that got documented somewhere  
- say, an informational RFC.


MfG Kai