If you're going to change SMTP,
I think it's better to create a new commands rather than modify old
ones.
No, I don't believe so. A change such as I suggested is backward
compatible
It's only compatable if you think changing the QoS on a multi rcpt
message is compatible. I can see the point of view, but I don't share it.
Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of dropping bounces - they are
the bane of my mail systems existance and many if not most are
ignored anyway. But if the Bob is delivering a share holders report
that's larger than Alice accepts, I don't believe he's going to like
not being told Alice didn't get it because he also sent a copy to
Charlie. Especially when it didn't work that way last quarter.
But if Alice was silently dropping the message last quarter.
Bob is no worse off.
In fact, since this behaviour is (from the start of this quarter)
standardized, Bob now knows that if he needs the QOS he was *assuming*
to be in place, he can ask for it. Alice can give him an appropriate
negative response after DATA. No changes needed to the syntax or sequencing
(or number)
of commands.
I grant that it's a large objection, but it applies to almost any
change proposed. It's nothing more or less than a large cost.
The cost may or may not exceed the benefit.
Your ACK4 needs wide deployment - and that takes years.
Changing the meaning of a response effects everyone
who /doesn't/ upgrade.
No, not in practice. If I get all positive responses and no DSN
I still don't know that my message actually gets to the mailbox.
What does a 250 after data *mean* to the sender now?
--
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg