Talk:Simple Mail Transfer Protocol

message: I updated the history to deal with a chronology cit request placed there in 2012. Maybe this has not been dealt with as it was not entirely clear what the request was asking for. However as it was a chronology request I think it likely it was the statement that BSD 4.1c was released "right after" RFC 788. The RFC is dated November 1981 (and already cited in the article).  BSD 4.1c was released 1982/1983 which is not "right after" the RFC so I have corrected the sentence and as everything else is cited, I am not sure it needs a citation. If it needs one, it would be the release date of BSD 4.1c. Nevertheless WP:OVERCITE pertains. This is not really controversial enough for a citation now in my opinion, so I boldly removed the chronology cit request after my rewording. If an editor disagrees, I suggest citing the release date of 4.1c BSD would be sufficient to establish chronology.  -- Sirfurboy (talk) 19:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: Can anyone explain this?
https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&start=2019-02&end=2020-01&pages=Simple_Mail_Transfer_Protocol
A fairly obscure techie article on WP, with no overlap to Hollywood, rappers or the usual traffic drivers, went from small amounts of traffic (a respectable 40,000 / month) to a massive 4 and 12 million in October and November 2019. I've never seen a hundred-fold increase like that, unless someone dies or a new film is announced. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:37, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting! But I don't know what has caused it. Even if it was slashdotted the spike should be nothing like that. It is almost as if a botnet was instructed to fetch the page, yet the question is why anyone would bother doing that. I don't see anything malicious having been edited in. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Traffic spike in late 2019? 

message: I propose to merge Extended SMTP into this article for the reasons described on Talk:Extended SMTP. Since I forgot to add the merge tags to the actual article bodies, I'm posting this here now to follow the proper protocol. The original proposal received only one comment ("Agree"). I'm looking forward to any comments on this matter. Thank you.
Anton.bersh (talk) 12:21, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Your proposal at Talk:Extended SMTP#Proposal to merge parts of this article into Simple Mail Transfer Protocol "Optional extensions" section and List of mail server software and Comparison of mail servers had unanimous support; you probably had few additional comments because your arguments were sound. Klbrain (talk) 13:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Klbrain (talk) 13:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge [[Extended SMTP]] into this article 

message: I propose merger of Mail Transfer Protocol (MTP) into this article's History section because:
:1. MTP is not notable by itself. I literally could not find sources to add to that article which would talk about MTP but not SMTP.
:2. The name MTP existed for at most two years, from 1980 (when it was introduced in RFC 772) through 1981 (RFC 780) until November 1981 (when MTP was effectively renamed into SMTP by RFC 788).
:3. The name MTP is obsolete, as stated on Mail Transfer Protocol, and therefore will likely not get much third-party coverage in sources that can be used for that article.
If there are no objections, I can carry out the merge myself.
Anton.bersh (talk) 17:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: If you object to it, feel free to revert. Please comment how you plan to improve that article. Anton.bersh (talk) 18:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge [[Mail Transfer Protocol]] into this article 

message: Assuming negotiated, can't BDAT, , fully replace DATA? If so, are Simple_Mail_Transfer_Protocol#Protocol_overview, and perhaps other sections of the article, not accurate? In any case, shouldn't BDAT mentioned at least once in the article? 147.161.13.105 (talk) 18:48, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: ESMTP and specifically BDAT aren't mandatory, so BDAT cannot replace DATA in general. In practice, 8BITMIME is normally used and has likely displaced adoption of BDAT. CHUNKING is in our list though, if relevant it could be expanded. --Zac67 (talk) 07:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does BDAT makes the Protocol_overview section not accurate? In any case, shouldn't BDAT gets mentioned?