Re: I-D ACTION:draft-arun-ncc-smtp-02.txt

Creating a different mailing lists is absolutely ok for small 
companies/simple mail server. Consider a huge corporate with a whole lot 
of aliases and a complex mail structure. Each time you want to eliminate 
a few mail-ids from a big list you have to send a request to the 
administrator to setup the new alias. This solution is more of a one 
time addition and solve the unable to negate problems.
Hector Santos wrote:

> I find this option to be more of a listserver feature.  I can mention quite
> a few things, but just off hand how do you stop someone from using it if the
> list administrator did not want you to?   I mean, the listserver (mailing
> list expander) does not have to honor it but then you just exposed to the
> intended excluded user, information you didn't want him to see.  You are
> going to hurt his feelings. :-)
>
> I don't know about others systems but our SMTP server system is separate
> from the list server.  The only thing the list server provides to the SMTP
> server is the valid list of acceptable mailing list names.  Expansion takes
> place after it is received by SMTP.
>
> This requires an MUA changes and LISTSERVER changes.  I think the complexity
> overweight the benefits and you could do it today very simply by creating a
> separate mailing list.  No change to software anywhere.
>
> --
> Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
> http://www.santronics.com
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Arun Sankar" <arun(_at_)india(_dot_)hp(_dot_)com>
> To: "ietf-smtp" <ietf-smtp(_at_)imc(_dot_)org>; "Keith Moore" 
> <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 8:16 AM
> Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-arun-ncc-smtp-02.txt
>
>
>  
>
> > This draft is in a state that most of the new features are. New in the
> > sense that as long as they are implemented in various forms (various
> > MTA's and MUA's) the usage of the new field would be very "limited". I
> > have mentioned this point in the Security field as well for more clarity
> > as well.
> >
> > The utility is huge on the long run. I agree it is a little of a problem
> > in the beginning, but this is the problem with any new additional
> > standard until there is sufficient implementation for it for it to be an
> > actual value add. Probably, if everybody within one company wants to
> > have it and are ready to make the changes and ready to use, it would be
> > a good start to the services growth.
> >
> > --
> > Best Regards
> > Arun
> >
> > Keith Moore wrote:
> >
> >    
> >
> > > [followups redirected to ietf-smtp(_at_)imc(_dot_)org list]
> > >
> > > On Apr 8, 2005, at 5:25 AM, Arun Sankar wrote:
> > >
> > >      
> > >
> > > > It is definately backward compatiable as there is a Extended SMTP
> > > > header (NCC) that also needs to be in place for the NCC processing to
> > > > proceed.
> > > >        
> > > no, it is not, in at least two ways:
> > >
> > > 1. with existing MUAs and other processors that don't display or take
> > > the Ncc field into account, it creates a mistaken impression that the
> > > message was sent to recipients that the message was not actually sent to
> > >      
> > >
> > > 2. because not all systems will support Ncc (either because they
> > > predated it, or because they think it's not a desirable feature)
> > > senders might send a message with the mistaken expectation that it
> > > will not be delivered to particular recipients.
> > >
> > > this extension seems of marginal value.  it can be used to attempt
> > > duplicate suppression, such as when a message arrives at a recipient's
> > > mailbox both directly and via a list - but it's better to just have
> > > duplicates suppressed at the recipient's message store.  the other use
> > > that comes to mind is that people will be tempted to use it as a way
> > > to implement "send to everyone on this mailing list except that
> > > troublemaker Joe".  while I sympathize with the desire to do that, it
> > > will work so unreliably in practice that it's better to not have the
> > > feature.
> > >
> > >
> > >      
> > --
> > Arun
> >
> > Optimism:
> > "Sir, we're surrounded!"
> > "Excellent. We can attack in any direction!"  --An Army Officer
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >    
>
>
>  
--
Arun

Optimism: 
"Sir, we're surrounded!"
"Excellent. We can attack in any direction!"  --An Army Officer