[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Last Call: 'A No Soliciting SMTP Service Extension' to Proposed Standard

2004-01-28 08:41:42

Carl Malamud writes, answering me:
I'd say that ONLY the first MTA may add SOLICIT=, and ONLY based on the Solicitation field and/or the MUA's SMTP/SUBMIT SOLICIT= argument. Other MTAs may not: if there are Received fields at all, neither they nor Solicitation may be parsed to construct SOLICIT=.

Hmmm ... I'd simplify that one more time. You need to be able to grab the solicitation header in case there are non-supporting mtas in the middle.

I considered that and IMO, that's not necessary. MTAs that are neither under control of the sender nor teh recipient generally only occur for mailing lists, and noone who's honest enough to use SOLICIT should be spamming a mailing list.

Btw, I also suggest sticking in some text noting that supporting SOLICIT as server does not require supporting it as SMTP client. For ten years, people have been assuming that supporting PIPELINING is hard, even though it's dead easy for the server.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>