Subject: Re: [lemonade] final future release question (I think)

From: Antony Bowesman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 08:39:51 +0200

Dave Cridland wrote:
>> Consequently, my vote is against your proposal, and for HOLDFOR= and 
>> HOLDUNTIL= as previously discussed.

Agreed

Antony

_______________________________________________
lemonade mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade

---

From: "Greg White" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2006 19:11:12 -0600

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Mark Crispin
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 8:01 PM
To: Greg White
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [lemonade] final future release question (I think)

> I have two objections to your proposal.

> First, I see nothing in RFC 2822 that prevents a client from specifying 
> multiple parameters with the same name.  Consequently, I think that your 
> concern against HOLDFOR= and HOLDUNTIL= is misplaced; a client can just as

> easily have HOLD=for; and HOLD=until; in the same command.

Yeah, that occurred to me after I sent out the email.  I looked in 2821, and
couldn't find anything either (did you mean 2821?).

> Second, I think that your proposed HOLD=for;20 syntax is bizarre (not to 
> mention ugly).  Is there any precedent for such use of semicolon in SMTP? 
> I'm not aware of any (I admit that I haven't been keeping careful track). 
> Where I have seen semi-colon used with parameters, it has been as a 
> delimiter between parameters as in MIME.

Since I haven't been keeping track either (precedent for use of semi-colon),
I did some investigating:

I started by looking at all the SMTP extension documents I could find in the
RFC Editor, and split them into two groups:  those that define MAIL/RCPT
parms, and those that don't:

Those that don't:

AUTH
CHUNKING
CONNEG
CONPERM
ENHANCEDSTATUSCODES
ETRN
PIPELINING
STARTTLS

Those that do:

8BITMIME
BINARYMIME
CHECKPOINT
DELIVERBY
DSN
MTRK
NO-SOLICITING
SIZE

Further examination of the "those that do" list shows the following
extensions employing syntax similar to the "bizarre, even ugly" syntax
suggested in the FUTURERELEASE draft:

1)  DELIVERBY - defines the BY parm for the MAIL cmd, uses semi-colon to
separate subvalues
2)  DSN - a) defines the NOTIFY parm for the RCPT cmd, uses comma to
separate subvalues
          b) defines the ORCPT parm for the RCPT cmd, uses semi-colon to
separate subvalues
3)  MTRK - defines the MTRK parm for the MAIL cmd, uses colon to separate
subvalues
4)  NO-SOLICITING - defines the SOLICIT parm for the MAIL cmd, uses colon to
separate subvalues

So, half of all the SMTP extensions that define MAIL/RCPT cmd parms use this
syntax, and a quarter of all SMTP extensions (that I could find) use it.  In
my mind, this is sufficient precedent for the use of semicolon (or other
char, for that matter) to delimit subvalues.  Furthermore, I'm not offended,
but "bizarre, even ugly" is a pretty strong denounciation of a string
consisting of <two tokens with a semicolon in the middle>.  I don't even
think this is "complicated";  even if it is complicated, compliant systems
are already parsing similar strings.  I know the ABNF is complicated, but
Randy has offered a solution for that.

>From what I can tell, this discussion is about asethetics, and not design.
I do not think I have heard a compelling design reason for switching from
one to two parameters on the MAIL command.  However, the only design reason
I had for using the current syntax was because I knew it had been used
before.  At this point, design-wise, the options look like "6 of one, half a
dozen of the other"...

Does anyone out there have a compelling design argument for one side or the
other?  I am not opposed to changing the document, but if we are down to a
"I just like this better" discussion, I would like to hear from more than 3
people (thanks Mark, Dave, Antony).  Or maybe 4 (I'm assuming Randy hasn't
changed his mind)

> -- Mark --

Thanks,
Greg

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate. Si
vis pacem, para bellum.

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 16:06:29 -0800

At 7:11 PM -0600 3/5/06, Greg White wrote:

>  Or maybe 4 (I'm assuming Randy hasn't
>  changed his mind)

No, I haven't.  :-)

(I still prefer the HOLDFOR and HOLDUNTIL versions, just because I 
think they look better.)
-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly-selected tag: ---------------
And still I persist in wondering if folly must always
be man's nemesis.                    --Edgar Pangborn