On 27 Apr 2003 21:49:30 +0000
Mark Delany <tcrcn-6ugsc(_at_)qmda(_dot_)emu(_dot_)st> wrote:
On Sun, Apr 27, 2003 at 10:02:04AM -0700, J C Lawrence allegedly
wrote:
On Sun, 27 Apr 2003 17:32:39 +0100 Jon Kyme <jrk(_at_)merseymail(_dot_)com>
wrote:
My native suspicion is that RCPT TO bundling is going to have to
go. Certainly for my own systems I'm more or less compleatly
disabled it via outbound rewriting via TMDA which unrolls any RCPT
TO bundles (only hold out is Mailman, and that only until I upgrade
to 2.1 and VERP).
That's a shame, particularly given that the RFCs require that I must
accept 100 rcpts.
Oh, I don't think it will be removed from the SMTP spec, but that
implementation of consent mechanisms will have the side effect of
causing single RCPT TO per message.
Why? Couldn't consent information be sent as part of the RCPT TO:
using the <rcpt-parameters> as defined in RFC2821?
Because the consent information needs to be encoded in a fashion that is
a) supported by currently deployed MTAs, and b) will be transparently
and auditably communicated to MUAs. There are loads of approaches, like
RCPT TO encoding that could be used if we were also able to
significantly change deployed software both at the core and the edge. I
don't see that happening.
--
J C Lawrence
---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas.
claw(_at_)kanga(_dot_)nu He lived as a devil, eh?
http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg