IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: header-munging

"D. J. Bernstein" <djb@koobera.math.uic.edu> Wed, 11 September 1996 05:17 UTC

Received: from ietf.org by ietf.org id aa10582; 11 Sep 96 1:17 EDT
Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa10576; 11 Sep 96 1:17 EDT
Received: from list.cren.net by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01705; 11 Sep 96 1:17 EDT
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by list.cren.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA08179; Wed, 11 Sep 1996 00:33:35 -0400
Received: from koobera.math.uic.edu (qmailr@KOOBERA.MATH.UIC.EDU [128.248.178.247]) by list.cren.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA08166 for <ietf-smtp@list.cren.net>; Wed, 11 Sep 1996 00:33:32 -0400
Received: (qmail 6399 invoked by uid 666); 11 Sep 1996 04:38:05 -0000
Message-Id: <19960911043805.6398.qmail@koobera.math.uic.edu>
Date: 11 Sep 1996 04:38:05 -0000
X-Orig-Sender: owner-ietf-smtp@list.cren.net
Precedence: bulk
Sender: ietf-archive-request@ietf.org
From: "D. J. Bernstein" <djb@koobera.math.uic.edu>
To: ietf-smtp@list.cren.net
Subject: Re: header-munging
X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.0 -- ListProcessor(tm) by CREN

> I think it might be much easier to consolidate these policy rules into
> one SMTP server, in which case allowing both RELAY and SUBMIT on the
> SMTP port would be good.

I don't understand. Does code consolidation imply port consolidation?

> The I-D draft-gellens-submit-01.txt proposes an ESMTP keyword to specify
> RELAY or SUBMIT, and also suggests an optional additional port.

In what situation is SUBMIT better than a separate port?

---Dan

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email