--On Friday, 23 May, 2008 07:58 -0400 Hector Santos
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I am wondering if writing a I-D or BCP is worth the effort
> here and your comments are welcome.
>
> Basically, with the advent of larger emails and the direction
> of mail sophisticated mail receivers performing DATA
> pre-response callouts to process the message before
> determining what the response code will be, there is a greater
> potential for client timeout issues, duplicate resends and
> messages and of course, wasteful bandwidths and overheads.
>...
Hector,
I'm not quite sure what you are proposing here. Examples:
* If the client sends SIZE with a big number, it should
wait longer?
* If the client knows that it is sending a big payload,
it should wait longer.
* The server should advertise, presumably as part of a
an extension announcement, "I'm a little slow, so, if
you send a lot of stuff, give me extra time".
Something else?
Clearly nothing in SMTP today prevents a client from using a
longer timeout if it thinks that is justified. On the other
hand, for a pair of SMTP implementation connected to the
Internet with decent broadband connections (or better) 10
minutes is a very long period of time unless one of them is
bogged down for other reasons. So I wonder if longer timeouts
alone would solve the problem or whether some sort of clunking
or restart facility would be a better solution.
john
