> On Wed, 11 Aug 2010, [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > > > "Long delays after the <CRLF>.<CRLF> is received can
> > > > result in timeouts and duplicate messages. Deferring
> > > > detailed message analysis until after the SMTP
> > > > connection has closed can result in non-delivery
> > > > notifications, possibly sent to incorrect addresses. A
> > > > receiver-SMTP MUST carefully balance these two
> > > > considerations, i.e., the time required to respond to
> > > > the final <CRLF>.<CRLF> end of data indicator and the
> > > > desirable goal of rejecting undeliverable or
> > > > unacceptable messages at SMTP time."
> >
> > > I like this text. I think it reflects current operational realities quite
> > > nicely.
> >
> > I agree. The only suggestion I have is that an informational referenece to
> > Craig Partridge's oringal document on the timeout issue might be helpful to
> > include after the first sentence.
> Yes. Maybe also add to the second sentence a cross-reference to section
> 7.1 on spoofing?
+1
Ned
