Message-Id: <199707051651.MAA18986@spot.cs.utk.edu>
From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
To: "Jeff Stephenson" <jeffstep@microsoft.com>
cc: "John C Klensin" <klensin@mci.net>, drums@cs.utk.edu, moore@cs.utk.edu
Subject: Re: Sizes in draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd05.txt 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 03 Jul 1997 10:20:56 PDT."
             <199707031724.NAA21375@CS.UTK.EDU> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Sat, 05 Jul 1997 12:51:56 -0400
Sender: moore@cs.utk.edu

> Given the concern we all share about the consequences of raising the
> limits, I think that 821bis should leave them as is but point out the
> problem.  Then we write an SMTP extension which either increases the limits
> to something more reasonable or removes them entirely and details how
> servers interact when there are no fixed limits.

I'm not sure what the SMTP extension would buy us.  What is the client
MTA going to do (other than bounce the mail) if the EHLO result reveals
that the server MTA won't accept a recipient address?  If the server
returns "5xx recipient address too long", all clients (not just those
that support the SMTP extension) will do the right thing.

821bis could require that 821bis-compliant SMTPs support larger addresses
than was required by 821, but it should also warn implementors about the
smaller minimums in 821.

Keith