Subject: Re: [IMA] draft-smtpext-00

From: "YAO Jiankang" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 15:15:15 +0800

Dear Charles H. Lindsey,

    Thanks a lot for your good comments. 
   some commens below.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2005 5:01 AM
Subject: [IMA] draft-smtpext-00

>As with my remarks concerning the headers draft, this is absolutely on the  
>right lines, but again I have some issues, and some niggles.

Thanks a lot for your words"this is absolutely on the  
right lines." We appreciate your words and supports. 

 for the most problems, John have already given you the answers or clarifications. (thanks John),

I answer the following questions.

>The rest is mostly niggles:

>4. In 2.3, I sujspect the definition of 'Atom' will turn out to be more  
>restrictive that arbitrary UTF-8. In any case, you will need to give ABNF  
>in due course.

  We will give ABNF description in the next version.

>5. In 2.4, you will need ABNF for ALT-ADDRESS (the job of the Downgrade  
>document is to tell you how to derive it, not what it looks like).  
>Actually, it will be exactly what RFC 2821 currently permits (it is the  
>main FROM/RCPT address that is going to be different).
  
We will give ABNF description in the next version.

>6. In 2.5, you need to deal with VRFY and EXPN. Although it is not  
>fashionable to implement them these days, they could actually be quite  
>useful here to give the client a preview of what the downgraded address is  
>going to look like before he comits to letting you do it.

agree. we will consider to deal with VRFY and EXPN in next version.

thanks.
Yao Jiankang
CNNIC
_______________________________________________
IMA mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima