On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 Valdis(_dot_)Kletnieks(_at_)vt(_dot_)edu wrote:
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 14:27:47 EDT, Dean Anderson said:
What Doug Royer is complaining about is that his mail client previously
told him right away. He didn't have to wait for a bounce. Now he has to
wait for a bounce, and that is a "big change".
Oh? Do you have proof that "right away" means "immediate in-line checking"?
You'll have to ask Doug. That was the way I took his message. "Immediate
in-line checking" (by the MUA) is the only thing that is "broken", so I
think that tends to suggest this was what he meant.
My laptop is currently a 100BaseT and a gigabit hop from the mail server -
a proper bounce done the way you want can arrive in under 2-3 seconds.
If you count in the fact that my laptop has a perfectly good MTA of its own,
a bounce can come back before I've gotten the mouse cursor off the 'send'
Good for you. I don't know what you are complaining about.
Contrast that to a possibly multiple-hour wait if you're sending it off
to wherever Verisign is sucking your mail. And *MAYBE* a bounce. (Work
out what happens if you send to more than one bad recipient).
Nothing different happens. If your laptop MTA can return a bounce in 2
seconds, so can other MTAs. If the MTA takes too long, that might be a
reason to distribute users to more MTAs.
If you send to more than one recipient, you still only transfer one
message. You've been listening to too many open relay crackpots, instead
of checking into how SMTP works.
From RFC 821 section 2:
When the same message is sent to multiple recipients the SMTP
encourages the transmission of only one copy of the data for all the
recipients at the same destination host.
I don't know of any MTA that doesn't do this.