Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id IAA06000; Thu, 7 Dec 1995 08:53:02 -0500 Received: by cs.cs.utk.edu (bulk_mailer v1.3); Thu, 7 Dec 1995 08:52:47 -0500 Received: from domen.uninett.no by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id IAA05974; Thu, 7 Dec 1995 08:52:45 -0500 Received: from drop051.internetMCI.ietf.org by domen.uninett.no with SMTP (PP) id <19486-0@domen.uninett.no>; Thu, 7 Dec 1995 14:52:18 +0100 Received: from dale.uninett.no (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dale.uninett.no (8.6.9/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA02929; Wed, 6 Dec 1995 22:34:46 -0600 Message-Id: <199512070434.WAA02929@dale.uninett.no> From: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no To: Eric Allman cc: drums@cs.utk.edu Subject: Re: My opinion on VRFY In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 05 Dec 1995 17:21:08 CST." <199512052321.RAA00679@jean-baptiste.internetMCI.ietf.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <2925.818310883.1@dale.uninett.no> Date: Wed, 06 Dec 1995 22:34:45 -0600 Sender: hta@dale.uninett.no Eric, the behaviour that I don't like is the following: vrfy xyzzy@somewhere.com 250 vrfy hta@dale.uninett.no 250 (where the second is local). What should happen is rather: vrfy xyzzy@somewhere.com 250 vrfy hta@dale.uninett.no 250 Harald T. Alvestrand (and my Sendmail setup does this) The first one is just "I'll route this on, I'm not sure what it is", while the second one is clearly a local address. Some mailers don't show any difference at all - what I suggest is that there SHOULD be a difference between the two cases. I'd like a new code for "yes, I know this address is OK" as a number distinct from 250, because so many mailers return 250 for "anything", but that is "new functionality". Or is it a bug fix? Harald A