Re: header-munging

["Randall C. Gellens" <[e-mail]>]

On 6 Aug 1996 05:54:14 -0000, [e-mail] (D. J. Bernstein)
wrote:

> Instead of an SMTP extension, why not use a different TCP port?

It's an interesting idea, and you do cite some good arguments in favor
of it.  However, the problem is that an SMTP client that wishes to give
permission to the SMTP server to fix the message would have to try the
new port number, and if it timed out, use the standard SMTP port.  By
using an extension, the client can connect in the same way, using an old
or new SMTP server.

Also, the draft includes techniques for guessing that the message is in
fact a submission even if the client doesn't use the extension.  That
way the SMTP server can do the right thing when receiving messages from
old and new SMTP clients.


--
|Randall Gellens             |                    [e-mail]|
|[phone]              | fax [phone] can add ,,,,,,,,6350|
|Mail Stop MV 237            |                        Net**2 656-6350|
|Opinions are personal;  facts are suspect;   I speak only for myself|

                  Randomly selected tag:

Coding is "90% finished" for half of the total coding time. Debugging
is "99% complete" most of the time.                    -- Fred Brooks