Re: odd behavior in enforcing of message size limits

[John Gardiner Myers <jgm+@CMU.EDU>]

Tom Samplonius <tom@uniserve.com> writes:
>   Allowing the DATA command makes sense.  The remote host wouldn't see a 
> DATA command failing, and the message would be input as SMTP commands.   
> Better to let DATA command succeed, and drain rest of the buffer, and 
> then throw it away.

The PIPELINING specification only permits the DATA command as the last
command in a group.  The client isn't permitted to pipeline the
message, it must wait for the 3xx reply from the server.  In my
opinion, the best behavior would be for the SMTP server to cause the
DATA command to immediately fail.

If you're interested in pipelining the message, I'd suggest looking at
the CHUNKING extension of RFC 1830.

-- 
_.John G. Myers		Internet: jgm+@CMU.EDU
			LoseNet:  ...!seismo!ihnp4!wiscvm.wisc.edu!give!up