ietf-asrg
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Asrg] pre-rfc thought balloon: ESMTP DATAFIRST

2006-06-06 14:10:55
point by point responses below.

On 6/6/06, George Schlossnagle <george(_at_)omniti(_dot_)com> wrote:
David Nicol wrote:

> Okay, how does this grab you:

Why should a reciever expend the resources to provide templatization of
senders' mail?

receivers coddle B2C senders in order to keep them better behaved.  Less
bandwidth is used by templated mass-customized mail than would be by
fully expanded mail.  Rate limits can be imposed (and exceptions sold.)  The
receivers offer templatization as a carrot to encourage B2C bulk senders
migrating to the new method.

Also, if I were sending such mail, I would be concerned
that it leaves my control in a non-final state - seems a huge liability
issue on both sides of the transaction.

well-defined templatization can be considered a form of compression.  Would
you be concerned about losing control if you knew that your message was
going to pass through gzip and then, later, gunzip?  (as an aside I think there
are compressed MIME types but no ZIP SMTP extension defined at this
time, without doing any research on that point, although I expect TLS might
offer some compression along with the encryption)

by leaving out the variable replacement placeholders, whatever they will be --
I'm not envisioning full-blown TAL here -- a TEMPLATE with no DATA
would amount to the previous proposal, with the addition of the possibility
of changing the envelope return address if so desired.

By filling most of your templates at the sending side and taking hash
sigs, you could
even fill your [HASH_SIGNATURE] slot with the result.

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg