Re: Improved straw man for retry scenarios

["Frank Ellermann" <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

John Levine wrote:
 
> Easier to remember straw man:
[...]

ACK
 
> In your answer, please consider RFC 2821 section 4.2.5,
> particularly the suggestion to requeue the message in
> the antepenultimate paragraph of that section.

It makes sense to consider section 4.2.5 in RFC 2821bis:

There was a bug in RFC 2821 (it had the 5xx blurb twice
instead of 4xx vs. 5xx).  RFC 2821bis fixed this problem.

There might be a very minor "NOT" nit for John's AUTH48:

= As with temporary error status codes, the SMTP client
- retains responsibility for the message, but SHOULD not
+ retains responsibility for the message, but SHOULD NOT
= again attempt delivery to the same server without user
= review and intervention of the message.

A re-interpretation Hector's and SM's proposals could be:

Hector's table treats this as a MUST NOT.  And SM's idea
could explain why it's only a SHOULD NOT.

 Frank