Re: UPN + GROUP + UPNEXPAND question.

[ned.freed@xxxxxxxxxxxx]

> ned.freed@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >
> > > At 06:59 PM 3/9/2000 -0800, Doug Royer wrote:
> > > >The reason that I think that, is that
> > > >may MTA's do not allow VRFY or EXPN, they return unimplemented.
> > > >I would suspect the same for UPNEXPAND. Many will NOT want
> > > >to give out membership lists to spammers. And I do not see
> > > >any benifit for UPNEXPAND - other than debugging. And
> > > >it would not be used from a CUA, or at least it would not
> > > >be reliable from a CUA as it can be turned off at the CS.
> >
> > An MTA that returns unimplemented for VRFY is in technical violation of
> > the SMTP specification.

> Right - I meant to say - EXPN returns "no I will not", which
> I think is not a violation.

Correct. Unfortunately, this sort of minutiae actually matters in practice,
since it affects what commands a client can expect to use. And there are some
very strange clients out there...

				Ned