On Jan 23, 2010, at 9:17, Martijn de Munnik
wrote:
"SHOULD" equals "MUST unless you have a really good reason". I'm
trying to figure out if somebody on the list knows a really good
reason.
There is no really good reason for a 3 second timeout in a public
server. There are really good rea
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010, Martijn de Munnik wrote:
> On Jan 23, 2010, at 4:24 PM, Sahil Tandon wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 22 Jan 2010, Martijn de Munnik wrote:
> >
> >> RFC2821 section 4.5.3.2 Timeouts reads
> >>
> >> "An SMTP server SHOULD have a timeout of at least 5 minutes while
> >> it is awaiting th
Martijn de Munnik:
>
> On Jan 23, 2010, at 4:24 PM, Sahil Tandon wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 22 Jan 2010, Martijn de Munnik wrote:
> >
> >> RFC2821 section 4.5.3.2 Timeouts reads
> >>
> >> "An SMTP server SHOULD have a timeout of at least 5 minutes while it
> >> is awaiting the next command from the s
On Jan 23, 2010, at 4:24 PM, Sahil Tandon wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jan 2010, Martijn de Munnik wrote:
>
>> RFC2821 section 4.5.3.2 Timeouts reads
>>
>> "An SMTP server SHOULD have a timeout of at least 5 minutes while it
>> is awaiting the next command from the sender."
>
> The key word is SHOULD,
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010, Martijn de Munnik wrote:
> RFC2821 section 4.5.3.2 Timeouts reads
>
> "An SMTP server SHOULD have a timeout of at least 5 minutes while it
> is awaiting the next command from the sender."
The key word is SHOULD, as opposed to MUST.
> When I try to connect to an one.com mx (
Hi List,
RFC2821 section 4.5.3.2 Timeouts reads
"An SMTP server SHOULD have a timeout of at least 5 minutes while it
is awaiting the next command from the sender."
When I try to connect to an one.com mx (mx-cluster1.one.com or
mx-cluster2.one.com) I notice they will close the connection after ab
