Re: [ietf-smtp] why are we reinventing mta-sts ?

["Valdis Kl=?utf-8?Q?=c4=93?=tnieks" <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, 07 Oct 2019 15:10:29 -0400, "Stan Kalisch" said:

> That may be, but I do not think, however, that this addresses Viruthagiri's
> assertion about the cost being prohibitive for some in developing countries.

The point is that there's 3 basic cases:

1) You're outsourcing the e-mail to a company. The added cost for the webserver
will probably be close to zero, because if the proposal gets enough traction to matter,
hosting companies will be able to do it at scale, and bundle it for free.

2) You're doing low-volume e-mail in-house. The added resources needed for
the webserver will probably be close to zero, because somebody will write a
"how-to" or even write an open-source program that you enter your domain name
and host name, and it writes the config files for you.

3) You're doing in-house e-mail at a volume that the web server resources matter.
At this point, you're *already* going to be fighting with scaling issues with  your SMTP
system and the web server is the least of your worries....

Yes, in some situations the cost of e-mail for an organization can be prohibitive.
However, this isn't a proposal that doubles the cost of doing it. It's more likely
going to add a half-percent or so - there's probably going to be a half-dozen things
applying more economic pressure.

And it's probably *far* too early in the protocol design process to be saying "oh,
but this *might* be a problem for a very very small percentage of sites" - especially
since we're talking about an *optional* extension.