On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 4:10 PM, Steve Atkins <steve(_at_)blighty(_dot_)com>
wrote:
If your toy idea is not like those other toy ideas then you should really
talk about the details
I've sworn off describing and defending my toy idea on this mailing
list, at least until it is operating again.
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?
There are some assertions that I think are true and which apparently
aren't obvious, such as
1: operations internal to a realm are outside the scope of proposals
2: messages should either be rejected at the gateway or filed for review
3: no additional SMTP messages should be generated by operation of the system
1 is a principle that appears in the implementations section of the
RBL document as a suggestion that one list internal MTAs as
exceptions; 2 happens now, mostly, with "spam folders" and 3 is
violated by challenge/response schemes.
#2 answers your question. I do not assert that "the recipient MX
always knows everything there is to know about whether an email will
be successfully delivered or not" if "successfully delivered" means
"reaches the recipient's eyeballs" but I do believe that a recipient
MX has enough information to make an accept/trylater/reject decision,
which is what SMTP requires it to do.
In this thread, which I started, I wish to argue for leaving
store-and-forward done internal to an e-mail realm, both inbound and
outbound, out of future discussion as an eminently handwavable
implementation detail.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg