Message-Id: <199512052311.RAA00176@dale.uninett.no>
From: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no
To: drums@cs.utk.edu
Subject: My opinion on VRFY
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <172.818205062.1@dale.uninett.no>
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 1995 17:11:04 -0600
Sender: hta@dale.uninett.no

This is written during the WG discussions in Dallas....
My opinion of what we should say about VRFY is:

- We should require VRFY.
- VRFY should be better than it is about local/nonlocal addresses

The relevant sections are 3.5 and 4.1.1.6

Today, lots of systems return:
250 <real address> - no information available on whether it was
   checked. 

I suggest the following language in 3.5.2 or its successors:

The following codes SHOULD be returned on VRFY:

250 Local user <real address> (information in front of the address
  - user was local, and mail will be delivered. Making some change
  to the supplied address is critical in order to distinguish from
  older, non-conforming systems.
251 Will forward to <real address>
252 <real address> - user is not local to this system. This SHOULD be
   returned whenever the mail will be relayed to another system, even if
   that is part of the same machine (like the CMU mailers).
550 Cannot VRFY (perhaps because of access control)
551 User not local, and I refuse to relay to <real address>
553 Ambiguous

(currently 252 is not listed as a result in 4.3 - that's probably a
bug)

       Harald