Subject: Re: smtpupd-12: MAIL resets state tables and buffers

From: Eric Allman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 07:14:03 -0700

I agree that MAIL should not be permitted when already in a transaction.

eric

============= In Reply To: ===========================================
: From:  Gregory Neil Shapiro <[email-masked]>
: Subject:  smtpupd-12: MAIL resets state tables and buffers
: Date:  Sun, 30 Jul 2000 21:39:45 -0700 (PDT)

: Section 4.1.4 states, "MAIL ... MUST not be sent if a mail transaction is
: already open" which I agree with.  However, the wording in 3.3 and 4.1.12
: do not make this restriction and actually read as if:
: 
: C: MAIL From:<[email-masked]>
: S: 250 Ok
: C: MAIL From:<[email-masked]>
: S: 250 Ok
: 
: should be allowed an implicit RSET would be done after receiving the second
: MAIL command.
: 
: Hoping that 4.1.4 is correct, this restriction should be mentioned in
: sections 3.3 and 4.1.12.
:

---

From: Eric Allman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 07:16:07 -0700

I don't see any reason to limit commands to four characters.  As noted,
there are already commands that violate this.  In particular, I would
not want anyone to think that "MAILFROM:<...>" is legal syntax, as
might be implied by this text.  I suggest deleting "four letter" from
2.4.

eric

============= In Reply To: ===========================================
: From:  Gregory Neil Shapiro <[email-masked]>
: Subject:  smtpupd-12: Four letter command verbs
: Date:  Sun, 30 Jul 2000 21:36:46 -0700 (PDT)

: Section 2.4 states, "All commands begin with a four letter command verb."
: SMTP Service Extension for Secure SMTP over TLS (RFC 2487) breaks this
: rule.  In light of this, should section 2.4's text be modified?

---

From: John Beck <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 10:19:17 -0400

Gregory> Section 2.4 states, "All commands begin with a four letter command
Gregory> verb."  SMTP Service Extension for Secure SMTP over TLS (RFC 2487)
Gregory> breaks this rule.  In light of this, should section 2.4's text be
Gregory> modified?

Eric> I don't see any reason to limit commands to four characters.  As noted,
Eric> there are already commands that violate this.  In particular, I would
Eric> not want anyone to think that "MAILFROM:<...>" is legal syntax, as might
Eric> be implied by this text.  I suggest deleting "four letter" from 2.4.

I support Eric's proposed modification.

-- John

---

From: Philip Hazel <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 15:19:14 +0100 (BST)

> I agree that MAIL should not be permitted when already in a transaction.

So do I.

Philip

-- 
Philip Hazel            University of Cambridge Computing Service,
[email-masked]      Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714.

---

From: Philip Hazel <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 15:21:08 +0100 (BST)

> might be implied by this text.  I suggest deleting "four letter" from

I also see no reason to limit commands to four characters.

Philip

---

From: Eric Allman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 07:28:44 -0700

I'm sorry, I'm supposed to suggest modified text....

In 4.2.1, I suggest changing:

  In many cases the SMTP client then simply needs to search for the reply
  code followed by <SP> at the beginning of a line, and ignore all
  preceding lines.

to:

  In many cases the SMTP client then simply needs to search for a line
  beginning with the reply code followed by <SP> or <CRLF>, and ignore
  all preceding lines.

eric

============= In Reply To: ===========================================
: From:  Gregory Neil Shapiro <[email-masked]>
: Subject:  smtpupd-12: <SP> optional in replies?
: Date:  Sun, 30 Jul 2000 21:43:29 -0700 (PDT)

: Section 4.2.1 states, "In many cases the SMTP client then simply needs to
: search for the reply code followed by <SP> at the beginning of a line."
: 
: Earlier in section 4.2, the document claims the <SP> part of the text
: portion of the reply and is therefore optional (the ABNF backs up this
: fact).  The quoted text from 4.2.1 conflicts with this.

---

From: "Bart Schaefer" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 16:29:22 +0000

-- 
Bart Schaefer                                                   Zanshin
http://www.well.com/user/barts                   http://www.zanshin.com

---

From: "Bart Schaefer" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 16:31:01 +0000

On Aug 2,  7:28am, Eric Allman wrote:
}
}   In many cases the SMTP client then simply needs to search for a line
}   beginning with the reply code followed by <SP> or <CRLF>, and ignore
}   all preceding lines.

I like this new text.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 13:12:21 -0400

> I agree that MAIL should not be permitted when already in a transaction.

I agree with this also.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 13:12:37 -0400

>  I suggest deleting "four letter" from 2.4.

I concur.

---

From: Dave Sill <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 14:34:18 -0400 (EDT)

>  beginning with the reply code followed by <SP> or <CRLF>, and ignore

I support this change.

-Dave

---

From: Dave Sill <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 14:40:36 -0400 (EDT)

I support this change.

-Dave

---

From: Russ Allbery <[email-masked]>
Date: 04 Aug 2000 19:07:34 -0700

John Beck <[email-masked]> writes:

> So I think that section is OK.  But section 3.3 says:

> ---
> This command tells the SMTP-receiver that a new mail transaction is
> starting and to reset all its state tables and buffers, including any
> recipients or mail data.
> ---

> This sounds like an implied RSET to me.  So I propose modifying the
> first paragraph of 3.3 to:

> ---
> There are three steps to SMTP mail transactions.  The transaction
> starts with a MAIL command which gives the sender identification.
> (In general, the MAIL command may be sent only when no mail transaction
> is in progress; see section 4.1.4.)  A series of one or more RCPT
> commands follows giving the receiver information.  Then a DATA command
> initiates transfer of the mail data and is terminated by the "end of
> mail" data indicator, which also confirms the transaction.
> ---

I support this change.

-- 
Russ Allbery ([email-masked])             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

---

From: "Lee Thompson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 10:31:38 -0700

> might be implied by this text.  I suggest deleting "four letter" from

Agreed.

-- 
Lee Thompson                       [email-masked]
Seattle Lab Inc.           http://www.seattlelab.com
Software Engineer                      ICQ: 19545760

---

From: "Lee Thompson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 10:33:33 -0700

Agreed.

---

From: "Lee Thompson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 10:34:42 -0700

>   beginning with the reply code followed by <SP> or <CRLF>, and ignore

Supported.