Re: [Asrg] ACK4

> From: Scott Nelson <scott@spamwolf.com>

> At 10:25 AM 5/21/03 +0100, Jon Kyme wrote:

> ...
> >Personally, I think the easiest solution to this problem is to modify the
> >semantics of 250 after DATA such that in the case of a message with
> >multiple RCPT TO we shouldn't *require* that a notification be generated
> >for a "delivery failure" if this "failure" is an action requested by a
> >mailbox "owner".
> ...

> If you're going to change SMTP,

When I first read Mr. Kyme's message, I ground my teeth at what I
thought was yet another worse than useless proposal to change SMTP
and then wait 15 or 20 years until the changes might or might not be
widely deployed and possibly start to have some effect, possibly but
probably not the intended effects.  Then I re-read it and realized
that it is not a proposal to change SMTP as SMTP is actually implemented,
installed, and used.  It instead would merely sanctify a well understood
mode that is already common in real life.  For example, that proposal
is the tactic I chose to deal with the protocol problem in the DCC clients.

Vernon Schryver    vjs@rhyolite.com
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg