On Nov 28, 2008, at 1:03 PM, David Nicol wrote:
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 2:17 PM, Chris Lewis <clewis(_at_)nortel(_dot_)com>
wrote:
Your list article traversed _four_ store-and-forward hops after
leaving
the IETF mail server before getting to me - and those are just our
internal MTAs. And it looks like it went thru several store-and-
forward
hops getting from your account on gmail to the IETF, and a couple
inside
the IETF.
I said "realm" not "host." From the list to all of our in-boxes, the
envelope return address was politely changed to
"asrg-bounces(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org" by Mailman version 2.1.9.
Figure 1 in rfc821 is the SMTP model, and it does not involve
intermediate hops. Complex multi-host systems one one side or the
other collapse into "Sender SMTP" and "Receiver SMTP" in that diagram.
gmail realm <-> irtf realm <-> nortel realm
Two transmissions between realms.
I meant "realm" not "host" which is what I said. If there's a better
term for what I mean by "realm" I am open to changing my terminology.
In arguing to drop store-and-forward as a requirement, the internal of
operations of a realm are considered a black box outside the FUSSP's
scope.
If there is store-and-forward at any point along the path, that'll break
most toy ideas that are broken by store-and-forward.
If your toy idea is not like those other toy ideas then you should
really
talk about the details, rather than asserting that the store-and-forward
that's commonly in use is not really store-and-forward.
Or, at least, define terms better. As one example of that, are you
asserting
that the recipient MX always knows everything there is to know about
whether an email will be successfully delivered or not, such that all
the store and forward hops beyond that can be safely ignored?
Cheers,
Steve
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg