"Eric A. Hall" <ehall(_at_)ehsco(_dot_)com> wrote:
On 1/29/2007 4:49 AM, Peter J. Holzer wrote:
It also may reduce the risk of resending a message which was already
accepted because the connection broke down, but I'm not sure that really
works:
If you send a message to 100 recipients, and the connection breaks after
43 replies, how many will get the message?
Hopefully none of them, since the server was not able to fully accept the
message for delivery.
It might be worth putting a synchronization marker after the full list of
recipients has been acknowledged by the client in order to ensure that
both end points are at the same state when final code is issued.
Ugh, no, that's horrible for performance. The right solution is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-fanf-smtp-rfc1845bis-00.txt
Tony.
--
f.a.n.finch <dot(_at_)dotat(_dot_)at> http://dotat.at/
NORTH UTSIRE SOUTH UTSIRE: MAINLY NORTHWESTERLY 6 OR 7, OCCASIONALLY GALE 8,
BACKING SOUTHWESTERLY 5 FOR A TIME. ROUGH OR VERY ROUGH. SHOWERS THEN RAIN.
GOOD BECOMING MODERATE.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg