Markus Stumpf wrote:
Isn't one person's "extension" another person's "patch"? If not,
what is the distinction? Is ESMTP an "extension" or a "patch" to
Neither is a topic for this list. This list isn't about fixing (E)SMTP
it is about something completely new. Hence the name Next Generation.
There are a lot of modifications to SMTP available as drafts from the
IETF I-D repository.
A brief recap: Victor Engmark decried "patches" but said that a
next-generation system should have "flexibility" via "extensions".
Do you disagree regarding "flexibility" and "extensions"?
If not, can you provide a useful, objective set of definitions to
distinguish a "patch" from an "extension".
ESMTP/SMTP was an example; don't get bent out of shape over it.