Qmail
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Qmail is clearly out of compliance with RFC2821 [X200611287440]

To: "Marc Perkel" <marc@perkel.com>
Subject: RE: Qmail is clearly out of compliance with RFC2821 [X200611287440]
From: "Maintenance Fees Inquiries" <MaintenanceFeesInquiries@USPTO.GOV>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 11:21:34 -0500
Cc: qmail@list.cr.yp.to
Delivered-to: sp-com-lists@consult.net
Delivered-to: gmail-qmail@securepoint.com
Delivered-to: sp.com.list@gmail.com
Delivered-to: mailing list qmail@list.cr.yp.to
Mailing-list: contact qmail-help@list.cr.yp.to; run by ezmlm
Thread-index: AccTCUXZmTRNlzO5QuqGBgYUhS87CQ==
Thread-topic: Qmail is clearly out of compliance with RFC2821 [X200611287440]
Dear Marc Perkel,                                                               
                                            Thank you for contacting the 
Maintenance Fee Branch.  You should receive a response within 2-3 business 
days.  The tracking number for your inquiry is X200611287440.                   
                                                                                
                                                       Maintenance Fee Branch 
(571) 272-6500



-----Original Message-----
From: Marc Perkel [mailto:marc@perkel.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 11:21 AM
To: Markus Stumpf
Cc: qmail@list.cr.yp.to
Subject: Re: Qmail is clearly out of compliance with RFC2821



Markus Stumpf wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 02:42:28PM -0800, Marc Perkel wrote:
>   
>> What this says is that if you decide to have some limits that the limits 
>> should be set at 2 or more. Since Qmail doesn't have a configurable 
>> limit then the MUST part applies.
>>     
>
>   
This document technically contradicts itself. Not written by a lawyer. 
As you can see in one place it says MUST and then gives an exception. Or 
it says REQUIRED but then another exception. So lets see what it really 
means

> Read on in the same section:
>
>    Although the capability to try multiple alternative addresses is
>    required, 
Note REQUIRED.

> specific installations may want to limit or disable the use
>    of alternative addresses.  
I believe what it means here is that the capability is required but you 
might want to put limits on it because of resources.

> The question of whether a sender should
>    attempt retries using the different addresses of a multihomed host
>    has been controversial.  The main argument for using the multiple
>    addresses is that it maximizes the probability of timely delivery,
>    and indeed sometimes the probability of any delivery; the counter-
>    argument is that it may result in unnecessary resource use. 
This is what lawyers cal dictum. It's a discussion. The reason for 
trying all MX is timely delivery. The exception is resources. If for 
example you are running your server on a dialup connection at 56k you 
can make an exception because retries use up your limited bandwidth.

>  Note
>    that resource use is also strongly determined by the sending strategy
>    discussed in section 4.5.4.1.
>
> Now look at "4.5.4.1 Sending Strategy"
>
>    The sender MUST delay retrying a particular destination after one
>    attempt has failed.  
By destination this means host. That means you don't keep hammering the 
same host over and over. But it does not mean that you don't try other 
servers. If it did then there would be no point to multiple MX records.

> In general, the retry interval SHOULD be at
>    least 30 minutes; however, more sophisticated and variable strategies
>    will be beneficial when the SMTP client can determine the reason for
>    non-delivery.
>   
Exim has a nice timing feature where after a number of hours the retry 
interval gets lomger.



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • RE: Qmail is clearly out of compliance with RFC2821 [X200611287440], Maintenance Fees Inquiries <=