Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!evax!texas!ylee
From: ylee@csl.dl.nec.com (Ying-Da Lee)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.sendmail
Subject: Re: IBM Do It Again
Message-ID: <1991Apr12.164151.8459@csl.dl.nec.com>
Date: 12 Apr 91 16:41:51 GMT
References: <1991Apr10.214922.23442@pa.dec.com> <1991Apr12.145344.7135@csl.dl.nec.com> <1991Apr12.155948.29233@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Organization: NEC America, C & C Software Development Lab
Lines: 18

In article <1991Apr12.155948.29233@mp.cs.niu.edu> rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
>In article <1991Apr12.145344.7135@csl.dl.nec.com> ylee@csl.dl.nec.com (Ying-Da Lee) writes:
>>
>>Is it really stated in any "formal" document that S3 is to be
>>idempotent?  This is news to me and there are a great number of
>>sendmail.cf's out there that have non-idempotent S3.  None of
>>Sun's sendmail.cf's I have seen, for example, have idempotent S3.
>
> I do not know of anything in sendmail that requires S3 be idempotent.

That's my point.  It bothers me to see bold assertion that
'S3 is supposed to be idempotent' without supporting evidence.
I have seen no such requirement either in documentation or in
actual practice.

	Ying-Da Lee
	ylee@csl.dl.nec.com
	uunet!necbsd!ylee