--On Thursday, 19 July, 2007 22:12 +0200 "Peter J. Holzer"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2007-07-15 15:08:05 -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
>> That said, I could see doing something else if there was
>> general consensus that it would be worthwhile. Partially
>> because of the circumlocutions and security consideration
>> issues, there is a lot of text about VRFY and EXPN in
>> 2821bis. I may regret saying this but, without looking at
>> the spec, I think I could separate that material out into a
>> separate document called "SMTP VRFY and EXPN Commands" or
>> words to that effect.
>
> I may have overlooked something, but AFAICS the descriptions
> of VRFY and EXPN take about 5 pages out of 95. We would need
> to keep a page or so for the syntax and basic functionality
> description, so we save about 4 % of the total length at the
> risk of introducing inconsistencies between the basics in
> 2821bis and the details in the separate RFC. Doesn't seem
> worthwhile to me.
I agree, but, given where the discussion seemed to be headed at
that point, felt obligated to mention the option.
john
